tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30270536802103483782024-03-13T11:50:09.171-07:00Robert David Graham's BlogRobert David Grahamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08823277317516618851noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3027053680210348378.post-42725412548786079362014-11-08T17:47:00.002-08:002014-11-09T14:06:58.796-08:00The Berlin Wall wasn't a border between countriesThis is the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. I thought I’d tell a little story.<br />
<br />
I studied in Germany as a kid, before the Berlin Wall came down. This one time, I met a girl at a party who had recently escaped from East Germany the month before. She had been hitchhiking in Czechoslovakia when the truck driver said “I’m going across the border, do you want me to smuggle you across?”. She had only minutes to decide the fate of the rest of her life, with nothing but the pack on her back.<br />
<br />
She showed me her English textbook. English was nearly as popular a foreign language in East Germany as Russian. Like most language textbooks, it told a fictional story of a traveler as an excuse for dialog. The traveler was an East German in America, experiencing the typical American problems of the massive tuberculosis outbreak, hunger, and suppression of the popular American Communist Party. This overlay of propaganda on normal education was a fascinating insight into the way a totalitarian society works.<br />
<br />
I asked the obvious follow up question, “so do you plan on visiting the United States?”.<br />
<br />
She started crying. Between her sobs she explained that this had been a life long dream of hers, but until that moment, she didn’t realize she could. After a month in West Germany, she had not yet realized she was truly free.<br />
<br />
I point this out because the Wall wasn’t simply a border between two countries, but a wall around people’s minds. Even when people didn’t believe the communist rhetoric, the totalitarian governments still had control over people’s minds.<br />
<br />
<br />
<hr />
more...
<br />
<br />
This is a really strong memory.<br />
<br />
The house was typically German, in the middle of Stuttgart. The lower floors were businesses, with a nondescript door with buzzer for dwellings on the upper floors. This apartment was typical student housing, converted from an attic, with low and angled ceilings, and inconveniently arranged rooms.<br />
<br />
The space was heated by a small stove burning coal. Being from America, I had never handled or smelled coal before. I had expected it to be light, like charcoal, but it was heavy, solid rock ("steinkohle" or "stone coal"). It also had a distinctive smell when burned, which hung over the city in winter.<br />
<br />
But even then, in Germany, and especially among poor students, heating was a luxury. Even at a party, we'd wear heavy sweaters and scarves, huddling in small rooms for warmth.<br />
<br />
This girl had her little backpack with her, the same backpack she'd had from Czechoslovakia. Her parents were able to send her a few additional things, like her textbooks, but not a lot. She was living on a small stipend from the West German government, going to school at the University of Stuttgart.<br />
<br />
It was weird. As a foreigner living in Germany, I felt out of place, but for her, I think the culture shock was even worse.<br />
<br />
Robert Grahamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09879238874208877740noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3027053680210348378.post-9265385687474991702012-11-19T14:02:00.000-08:002012-11-19T16:49:43.115-08:00Republicans aren’t that dumb about science The message of <i>To Kill a Mockingbird</i> is that you won’t understand a person until you walk a mile in their shoes. I’m a non-religious Republican. That means while I agree with things like “evolution”, I’ve walked a mile in shoes of religious people who don’t.<br />
<br />
The first thing I’ve found is the “<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman_fallacy">strawman fallacy</a>”. Democrats misrepresent the Republican position, caricaturizing it into something silly. The Republican position isn’t an outright denial of science, but something more subtle.<br />
<br />
From talking to the religious, I find their concern is that schools teach students to have “faith” in evolution, setting it up as a state-sponsored religion competing with their Christian “faith”.<br />
<br />
They are correct. Schools fail at teaching evolution. Students leave school without really understanding how mutation and natural selection work. They don’t understand the evidence, like radioisotope dating of fossils. Their view of evolution is vaguely Lamarckian. Or, in pop culture terms, the view of most students is like what was portrayed in X-Men, that humans are becoming “more evolved”, a phrase that has no meaning in Darwinism.<br />
<br />
In other words, what Republicans are concerned about is not that schools are teaching the science of Darwinism, but that they fail at teaching the science, and teach a religion of Darwinism instead.<br />
<br />
Democrats call this a success. Their first priority is to have students <i>believe</i> in evolution, and they pursue this with vigor. <i>Understanding</i> evolution is a secondary priority. Indeed, they rarely understand Darwinism themselves.<br />
<br />
These religious Republicans propose the wrong solution, teaching “creationism” or “intelligent design”. But they are right that there is a problem. The solution is to spend more effort teaching the evidence, so that the majority of students can recognize how Lamarck and the X-Men get evolution wrong. We should care less whether students “believe” this evidence, and care more that they “understand” it.<br />
<div>
<br />
I urge you to try to understand the issue from the Republican perspective, rather than blindly echoing the Democrat strawman version.</div>
Robert Grahamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09879238874208877740noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3027053680210348378.post-29192403169747533852011-10-13T11:33:00.000-07:002011-10-13T11:33:06.906-07:00RIP Dennis Ritchie<i>Sublime</i>. There is no better word that can be used to describe the C programming language and the Unix operating system, which were co-created by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Ritchie">Dennis M. Ritchie</a> (dmr), who passed away earlier this week. C and Unix are <i>sublime</i>.<br />
<br />
The way computers work today is because that is how Dennis Ritchie (and cohorts) decreed they should run. This is known as the Unix operating system, which all modern operating systems are based on, either directly or indirectly. We take for granted things like “files” on our computers, but that’s not how most computers organized data prior to Dennis Ritchie. It’s not just your computer, but your mobile phone, your TV, and even your car, that work the way that Ritchie (et al) designed.<br />
<br />
In additional to Unix, Ritchie is also responsible for the C programming language (Unix was written using C). Most modern languages, from JavaScript to to PHP to Lua are based partly on the C programming language.<br />
<br />
But C is more than just a programming language. It is a sublime expression of computing.<br />
<br />
In the beginning, C was designed to be a “portable” low-level language. Until C, low-level code was written in machine language. Sure, database applications might be written in high-level languages like COBOL, but such languages were inappropriate for low-level code, like that found in operating systems. C was designed specifically to be a common low-level language that worked on many different machines at the time. This allowed Unix, which was written in C, to become a universal operating system that worked on many types of machines. In the modern world, Unix runs your iPhone and super computers.<br />
<br />
But a strange thing happened after C: all new machine processors designed after that point were designed specifically to run C.<br />
<br />
Take your iPhone, for example. It runs a processor type called “ARM”. The ARM processor was designed from the ground up to run C code efficiently, specifically in the way it handles the stack and conditional expressions. Or take the x86 processor family from Intel. Over the years, as the processor has grown from 16-bit to 32-bit to 64-bit; the blueprint has always been how it can run C code efficiently. Even though the x86 and ARM cannot run each other’s machine language, they both can be programmed in C, and both run C efficiently.<br />
<br />
I’m a long-time C programmer. I learned C as a child, and it took me a decade of programming to appreciate the sublime nature of C. It would be fair to say that it was Dennis Ritchie (and cohorts) that taught me how to program. By studying their decisions in creating the language, I learned how such a language should be used. I still have my original dog-eared copy of K&R’s book on the C programming language. Like any good book, I have read and re-read it multiple times.<br />
<br />
In the late 1990s, I started my own company, selling a high-performance network monitoring system for preventing hacker attacks. By weaving C code in just a certain way, I was able to achieve 10 times the network speeds of my nearest competitor. I could achieve the improbable because I could see the sublime nature of C. This caused my competitor to buy out my company, replacing their product with my own. This has made me very rich. And I owe this to Dennis Ritchie (and his codesigners).<br />
<br />
Dennis Ritchie wasn’t solely responsible for Unix and C. There were many others involved, notable Brian Kernighan and Ken Thompson. It was these guys who were the heros of my youth, not baseball players or musicians or politicians. It was these guys who inspired me to become the person I am today.<br />
<pre>#include <stdio.h>
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
printf("Thanks dmr.\n");
}
</pre>Robert Grahamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09879238874208877740noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3027053680210348378.post-75403348182427739172011-09-28T12:37:00.000-07:002012-07-03T10:41:31.363-07:00Guardian’s take on Science vs. ReligionThis Guardian article (<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2011/sep/28/faster-than-light-science-religion">http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2011/sep/28/faster-than-light-science-religion</a>) on the difference between science and religion annoys me. It’s gets the science mostly correct (faster-than-light neutrinos will overturn a lot of theories, but not science itself), but it lies about how science is taught. Specifically, in politicized issues like Evolution and Global Warming, children are taught to “believe”, to have “faith”, and that to disagree is to “sin”. Scientists themselves turn to “belief” when the evidence fails them.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
The <i>basics</i> of both theories (Evolution and Global Warming) are well supported by the evidence. The radiometric dated fossils of intermediate forms leading to modern humans is pretty hard to doubt. Likewise, evidence is solid that the Earth is warming and that mankind has increased the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide.<br />
<br />
But the politicized elements of these theories are not supported by the science. While religious theories of “irreproducible complexity” are bogus, there is nonetheless little evidence of how cell mechanics evolved. That’s because it happened three billions years ago in the primordial soup and left little evidence behind. The proper thing for scientists to do is admit this, to say “we don’t know”. But they don’t do that; they instead insist that we must have faith it life came into existence by some natural process that science will eventually discover. Scientists claim we should have faith that God didn’t create life.<br />
<br />
One of the foolish things the religious do is explain every gap in science with faith in God. This “God of the gaps” argument is regularly disproved when science later fills in the gap with observation. But here is the thing: the religious feel justified doing this because the scientists do it themselves, insisting on Faith in Science instead of admitting “we don’t know”. An example of this is the horrible book “Science, Evolution, and Creationism” (http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11876) by the National Academy of Sciences. It refuses to admit anything science doesn’t know, and insists that the reader have faith in science. This is certainly not the “scientific” form of “belief” that the Guardian article praises.<br />
<br />
This “faith in science” creates a justifiable concern for the religious. It means they are now competing against a state-sponsored faith. Schools shouldn’t be teaching Religion as an alternative to Science (as Rick Perry insists), but they should certainly stop teaching Science as an alternative to Religion.<br />
<br />
The problems with Global Warming are even more extreme than Evolution. Sure, the evidence seems pretty solid that by the year 2100, mankind will have doubled the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. However, the solid science indicates only about 1 degree rise in temperature.<br />
<br />
“Proof” for a more drastic rise, such as the 4.5 degree change predicted by the UN IPCC is based on bad science, such as computer models rather than observation. The IPCC claims we should have faith that computer models accurately predict the future because they do such a good job predicting the past, that they produce the same temperatures that were used to construct them. This is so anti-scientific that I’m astonished they get away with it.<br />
<br />
The strongest argument the Democrats use isn’t “the evidence points to Global Warming”, but “the consensus of climatologists is Global Warming”. The first arugment would be scientific, the second argument isn’t. Indeed, it’s a critical thinking fallacy known as “Appeal to Authority”.<br />
<br />
A demonstration of this fallacy is a recent quote by President Obama criticized Republican candidate Rick Perry “You’ve got a governor whose state is on fire denying climate change”. Yet, no scientist believes there’s a link between the two. Many scientists have hypothesized that droughts could become slightly worse (or slightly better) on average as the climate shifts, but (1) they are just hypotheses with no evidence yet, and (2) they predict slight changes, not massive changes. Just because scientists believe in something doesn’t mean they believe in your interpretation of that thing; just because scientists overwhelmingly believe in the basic evidence of a warming globe doesn’t mean any of them think that manmade carbon dioxide caused the Texas wildfires.<br />
<br />
But there is much more to this “Appeal to Authority” fallacy. Take evolutionary microbiologists, for example. Sure, 99% believe that there is a natural explanation for how cellular mechanics evolved. But that’s because it’s the premise of the field, not the conclusion. The field exists to look for that evidence, not because they’ve found it yet. Sure, they have found lots of tidbits, and Evolution is still the only adequate theory that pulls it all together, but the evidence is still fragmentary.<br />
<br />
In much the same way, modern climatology was created out of fear of Global Warming. Global Warming is the premise rather than the conclusion.<br />
<br />
The secular left jumped on Rick Perry for comparing his position to Galileo. They pointed out that everybody with a crazy scientific theory makes that claim. But they were wrong. Crazy scientific theories aren’t debunked with a vote, they are debunked by saying “there is no evidence”. Most of the debunking of Michelle Bachman’s linking of vaccine and mental retardation was “there’s no evidence supporting that theory”, not “scientists have voted against it”.<br />
<br />
Only in the case of Global Warming has an international body “voted” on what the scientific consensus is supposed to be. This hasn’t been done since the Church did it back in the 1600s. If that’s the way they conduct science, then bringing up Galileo is an apt criticism.<br />
<br />
<br />
Back the FTL neutrinos. If replicated, this will overturn a lot of scientific theories. That’s because those theories are “falsifiable”: they clearly state which evidence, like faster-than-light, that will disprove them. Now compare this to Global Warming. It isn’t falsiable. If a drought in Texas, or a hurricane, is evidence supporting that theory, then shouldn’t the lack of drought or lack of hurricanes be evidence contradicting that theory? Well, the long term trend so far shows no change in droughts world-wide, and a slight <i>decrease</i> in hurricane activity. Heck, even the onset of the next ice age would only serve to “prove” Global Warming, as was done in the movie “<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_After_Tomorrow">The Day After Tomorrow</a>”.<br />
<br />
(Evolution is better: finding fossils out of date in the evolutionary tree will falsify it).<br />
<br />
I am a scientist. Science is better than religion. But the scientists themselves are just as political, religious, and craven as everyone else. Unfortunately, while there are many articles comparing science to religion, there are few comparing good science to the vast quantity of bad science out there.Robert Grahamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09879238874208877740noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3027053680210348378.post-34875977131257109262011-09-13T14:42:00.000-07:002011-09-14T11:32:41.275-07:00The anti-intellectualism of Paul Krugman<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJ1vJyRvBC7pUk8da6gOjWkDam2yTzHdwm5fVlcKzWeTmsS7LHJlJz2DQJjYL5C1ZpbiLIFIKtAs-q52275XtTkl8cqvyXFAAC-ZkxNgNttIK9vkb1BQ4YFD_VJvNPZXenMAE3idyScCI/s1600/Paul_Krugman-press_conference_Dec_07th%252C_2008-8.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJ1vJyRvBC7pUk8da6gOjWkDam2yTzHdwm5fVlcKzWeTmsS7LHJlJz2DQJjYL5C1ZpbiLIFIKtAs-q52275XtTkl8cqvyXFAAC-ZkxNgNttIK9vkb1BQ4YFD_VJvNPZXenMAE3idyScCI/s200/Paul_Krugman-press_conference_Dec_07th%252C_2008-8.jpg" width="161" /></a></div>In a NYTimes op-ed, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/29/opinion/republicans-against-science.html?_r=1">Paul Krugman attacks Republicans</a> (like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_perry">Rick Perry</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney">Mitt Romney</a>) for being <i>anti-science</i> and <i>anti-intellectual</i>. But the science and critical-thinking errors in his post demonstrate that it is in fact <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krugman">Krugman</a> who is anti-science and anti-intellectual.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<b>Ad Hominem Attacks</b><br />
<br />
The most common sign of the anti-intellectual is the <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem">ad hominem</a></i> attack, where you debate an opponent’s character rather than his/her arguments. That’s what Krugman does here. In an op-ed that is supposed to be pro-science, nowhere does Krugman discuss scientific evidence. Instead, he only discusses character, implying that you should not believe what Republicans say about Evolution and Global Warming because they are anti-science.<br />
<br />
Reasonable people disagree with each other. There are two sides to every debate. The anti-intellectual forgets this, and comes to believe that there is only one side to the debate, their own. The anti-intellectual comes to believe that the reason the other side disagrees is because they are not reasonable people, that they are evil, stupid, and corrupt.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>"<i>Just a theory</i>" with "<i>some gaps in it</i>"</b><br />
<br />
Krugman criticizes Perry’s claim that Evolution is "just a theory" that has "got some gaps in it".<br />
<br />
Perry is correct. Evolution does have some gaps in it. It doesn’t have have as many gaps as Perry wants (there are no important gaps in the evidence of Man descending from the Ape). Nor are there any gaps that would disprove the theory. But there are gaps nonetheless.<br />
<br />
The most important gap is how life began. Unlike the clear <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating">radiometric</a> dated fossil record of the descent of Man, there is no evidence how life began. There are many promising hypotheses and tantalizing bits of data, such as the creation of amino acids without life or self-reproduction of RNA, but there is little that they can "prove".<br />
<br />
The issue is that Democrats and educators teach students that while science doesn’t know precisely how life began, that students should have <i>faith</i> that science will eventually discover a natural cause. The Religious Right is understandably upset at this: instead of competing against science, they are competing against a state-sponsored <i>faith</i>.<br />
<br />
In the 2008 presidential debate, (left-wing) moderator Chris Mathews asked the candidates to raise their hands "<i>do you believe in Evolution?</i>". That’s a faith-based question about beliefs. Scientific questions would be of the form "<i>are you convinced by the evidence that life-forms have changed on this planet for billions of years?</i>" or "<i>are convinced by the evidence that Man descended from the Ape?</i>" or "<i>are you convinced by the evidence that life began through a natural process?</i>". <br />
<br />
It’s not the "<i>gaps</i>" that was anti-science in Rick Perry’s comment, but his proscription that schools should teach Creationism/Intelligent-Design alongside Evolution and let students decide for themselves. That’s wrong. Creationism/Intelligent-Design are non-falsiable hypotheses, and have no place in the classroom. What students should be taught instead is simply that nobody knows how life began. More importantly, students need to be taught the lesson that science is as much about what we don’t know as it is about what we do know, that we don’t use <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps"><i>faith</i> to fill in the gaps</a>. The more scientists admit what they don’t know, they better the public can trust them about what they do know.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Trends</b><br />
<br />
Science is about the best theory that describes the available evidence. An easy way to spot anti-science is when somebody cites a trend, such as "<i>the evidence increasingly shows that ...</i>" or "<i>more and more scientists believe that ...</i>".<br />
<br />
Rick Perry made that mistake, saying that scientists are increasingly doubting Global Warming. That’s anti-science.<br />
<br />
But then Krugman turns around and makes the same mistake, saying that scientists are increasingly believing that Global Warming was worse than previously thought. That’s equally anti-science.<br />
<br />
The only scientific arguments are about what the evidence shows now, not what it will show in the future.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Conspiracy theory</b><br />
<br />
Krugman discusses Rick Perry’s "<i>truly crazy conspiracy theory</i>" that climatologists are exploiting Global Warming for their own gain, that they know the truth, but since they are earning so much money from Global Warming, they refuse to admit the truth.<br />
<br />
Krugman is right, this is a conspiracy theory. But at the same time, Krugman believes in conspiracy theories going the other way. For example, Krugman believes that Global Warming <i>denialism</i> is a conspiracy <a href="http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/04/paul_krugman_en.html">funded by the oil companies</a>.<br />
<br />
Although both these conspiracy theories are false, it is still fair to say that both sides are biased. Bias doesn’t imply conscious decisions to falsify data, but the unconscious process that tilts data in one direction.<br />
<br />
Bias happens in every discipline, not just climatology. Take, for example, the question whether mobile phones cause brain cancer. The WHO recently added mobile phones to its list of thing that <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/05/31/who.cell.phones/index.html">"<i>possibly</i>" cause cancer</a>. It did so despite any evidence. That’s because you can’t prove a negative; you can’t prove that mobile phones <i>don’t</i> cause cancer. Many studies are performed, but most fail to show a link, so they don’t get published. By pure chance, some will show <i>lower</i> cancer rates among mobile phone users. The are obviously wrong, so won't get published, or will be endlessly investigated to find out what's wrong with them. By pure chance, a few studies will show <i>higher</i> higher rates of cancer. They get published, and get press attention. Hence, the literature will always show higher cancer rates among mobile phone users, even if there is no correlation.<br />
<br />
The same is true of climatologists. There is no reason to believe that they are less biased than their peers in other scientific disciplines. Yet, any charges of bias are attacked (by among others, Paul Krugman) as being unfounded conspiracy theories.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Appeal to Authority</b><br />
<br />
Krugman makes the claim that you should believe in Global Warming because it’s the consensus of 97% of climatologists.<br />
<br />
That is a critical-thinking fallacy known as "<i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority">Appeal to Authority</a></i>". You can read up on it at Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
This fallacy fails with Global Warming for three reasons.<br />
<br />
The first is the precise definition of "Global Warming". Even skeptics, the so-called <i>denialists</i>, agree with the basic scientific evidence that the globe is warming, that carbon dioxide is a major greenhouse gas, and that mankind has raised the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Agreement with this scientific evidence of "<i>global warming</i>" doesn’t imply agreement with the political theory of "<i>Global Warming</i>" that catastrophe is coming unless mankind divorces itself from fossil fuels.<br />
<br />
The second "<i>Appeal to Authority</i>" problem is that it’s like saying you should believe in Astrology, because it’s the consensus of Astrologers. Climatology is different from other sciences, for the most part, because it’s trying to make predictions about what will happen 50 years from now; we can’t completely prove the theory until "it’s too late". This leads to a reliance on computer models, questionable statistics, and irreproducible results that would be unacceptable in other scientific disciplines. If you read the UN IPCC consensus reports, you'll find good reasons to question how the science was conducted.<br />
<br />
The third "<i>Appeal to Authority</i>" problem is the bias problem discussed above: Global Warming is not the conclusion of the discipline so much as the premise. It’s like how <i>evolutionary microbiologists</i> lack proof of how life began, but are actively looking for that proof. This means that 98% of evolutionary microbiologists believe life began through a natural process, although they haven’t found proof of it yet. Likewise, globalwarmology started with a vague hypothesis, then governments started spending billions looking for proof of that hypothesis, creating the field of climate science that we know today.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>"<i>I don’t know</i>"</b><br />
<br />
Krugman calls candidate Mitt Romney a moral coward for saying "<i>I don’t know if it [Global Warming] is mostly caused by humans</i>".<br />
<br />
But saying "<i>I don’t know</i>" is the hallmark of the scientist. What makes science better than religion is the willingness of scientists to admit they doesn’t know, rather than bridge gaps in knowledge with faith. Romney failing is his faith that God created life rather than admitting "<i>I don’t know</i>" to that question, too.<br />
<br />
The moral coward here is Krugman for insisting that Global Warming is some sort of moral debate rather than a scientific debate. It’s a common tactic of the Democrats: it’s easier to win this moral debate rather than a scientific one. But Global Warming is firstly and lastly a scientific debate -- if you can’t cite the scientific evidence, then you shouldn’t be debating the issue.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Conclusion</b><br />
<br />
Yes, Republican politicians are frequently anti-science, but that’s because they are <i>politicians</i> rather than <i>Republicans</i>. Democrat politicians are equally bad. There are few politicians, on either side, as anti-scientific as Al Gore, who mangles the science of Global Warming, declares it to be a moral debate rather than a scientific one, and says that you shouldn’t believe the scientists anyway, because they underestimate the problem.<br />
<br />
Pundits, like Krugman, are supposed to be the counterweight, to hold up intellectual/scientific principles in the face of politics. Yet in this post, and many others, Krugman demonstrates he is just as bad as a politicians.<br />
<br />
A good counter-example to Krugman is the Republican economist <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Mankiw">N. Gregory Mankiw</a> (chief economist under Bush, advisor to Mitt Romney). Like <a href="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/">Krugman</a>, Mankiw has a <a href="http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/">popular economics blog</a>. Like <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Economics-Paul-Krugman/dp/0716771586/ref=sr_1_2">Krugman</a>, Mankiw has written a <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Economics-N-Gregory-Mankiw/dp/0538453052/ref=sr_1_1">popular college textbook on economics</a>. Whereas their textbooks are in agreement on the basics of economics, their blogs are in disagreement on applying economics to political issues, like the current economic problems. Whereas ad hominem attacks are common in Krugman’s blogs, they aren’t to be found in Mankiw’s blogposts. Indeed, Mankiw often gives glowing praise to those he disagrees with. In addition, Mankiw frequently describes a debate from both sides, describing <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/business/economy/01view.html">why reasonable people might disagree with him</a>. Krugman has a lot to learn about intellectualism from Mankiw’s blog.<br />
<br />
<i>Update:</i> Here is another example. This Krugman <a href="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/12/shocking-barro/">post</a> starts off with a personal attack, the <a href="http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2011/09/krugman-on-barro.html">Mankiw</a> counterpoint does not.Robert Grahamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09879238874208877740noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3027053680210348378.post-64306860759805772602011-08-25T01:18:00.000-07:002011-08-25T01:23:30.705-07:00A thank you note to Steve Jobs<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_tw08jxuFgvDl-65eKim5GIVvtcBQVveUpEt_45IPo4N4WeUNt7S8w_xSbclKDMPMBSc_KADSBLHZZ8mPdTd7PDsKdjLadjGwi4aTyVk_-Ufeo2Vyp2qnUPiI9bhkNICOWuFCnp3oJe8/s1600/612px-Steve_Jobs_Headshot_2010-CROP.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="195" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_tw08jxuFgvDl-65eKim5GIVvtcBQVveUpEt_45IPo4N4WeUNt7S8w_xSbclKDMPMBSc_KADSBLHZZ8mPdTd7PDsKdjLadjGwi4aTyVk_-Ufeo2Vyp2qnUPiI9bhkNICOWuFCnp3oJe8/s200/612px-Steve_Jobs_Headshot_2010-CROP.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>I was a shy nerd in school, bullied by the other kids. But I could bear it because of one thing: nerd power. I knew that I would follow in the footsteps of other nerds, like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, to start my own tech company, get rich, and overcome those people who bullied me in school. And I did just that, selling my company for <a href="http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/internet-security-systems-to-acquire-network-ice-82507997.html">$200 million</a> in 2001.<br />
<br />
Steve gave me more than just the self confidence to start my own company. He taught, by example, how to have "vision", how to do great things that changed the world.<br />
<br />
<br />
I remember in 1984 during a shopping trip with my dad. While he was in the grocery store, I wandered over to the computer store next door. The new Macintosh was on display. I sat down, played with the mouse, opened windows, and so on. (Remember, before this, computers did not have a mouse.) I had an epiphany: this is the way computers were supposed to work, all other computers were wrong. Adults behind me were debating this new computer, mostly poo-pooing it. I was astonished. What was wrong with these people that they could not see the future? Why could they not see what was so obvious to me? <br />
<br />
Steve didn't invent the mouse. Or windows. Or anything, really. None of this was his idea. His skill wasn't invention, but this thing I'm calling "vision": the ability to recognize the right answer when he sees it, the ability to see the future.<br />
<br />
Another part of this "vision" is love. When you pick up an Apple product, you can tell that somebody loved it. You can tell that it wasn't designed by committee.<br />
<br />
Grab the Apple power cables. Everyone else's cables feel the same, Apple's feel different. Up until last year, they were soft and cuddly – as if they were filled with cotton rather than copper. This year, they've gone the other direction, feeling like they are filled with stiff rubber. They aren't cuddly anymore, but when you mix them up with other cables, they don't get tangled. Nor do they get bent, which causes the copper inside to fracture. Either way, they are better than normal cables.<br />
<br />
Imagine Apple's competitors. A committee gets together, looks at marketing studies, and tries to figure out how many more units they can ship with better cables, or how much more they can charge. They come up with the obvious answer: zero. So, they just shove any old cable in the box.<br />
<br />
That's why they can't compete against Apple. Hard or soft cables, it doesn't matter. What matters if that if somebody doesn't love it, Apple doesn't put it in the box.<br />
<br />
I'm a nerd. When I created my company, I built a product for other nerds. I looked into the future, and created the first "intrusion prevention system" or "IPS", now a common anti-hacker tool on networks. I saw the "right" answer to difficult problems, such as the "fail open bypass unit", still a highly debated feature. But most of all, I loved my product. This love was evident when you put my product next to my competitors. It was so more advanced than the product of my biggest competitor, and worked so well, that their sales fell off a cliff, forcing them to buy out my company.<br />
<br />
<br />
Steve, everyone else is going to thank you for repeatedly changing the world (Apple ][, Mac, Pixar, NeXTstep, iPod, iPhone, iPad). But wanted to thank you for changing me, giving me the self confidence as a child that I, too, could do great things, and more importantly, showing me how.<br />
<br />
Robert Grahamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09879238874208877740noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3027053680210348378.post-59989904652135205642011-06-12T01:38:00.000-07:002011-09-13T15:09:31.960-07:00All roads lead to "Philosophy"<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBW6eJS6BgI2i6HIvGxW8TVX4lLfT3HxyD5qb_MOd52GeGx905FIpfjNo6M8HI1MahL_jm77elCti1lRzT6aT71JeDhNtF4mogtlvzHZ1tbtC3W8EcMEFdUSpa1l3BqtN2F0o25MUpDuY/s1600/starwars.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="118" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBW6eJS6BgI2i6HIvGxW8TVX4lLfT3HxyD5qb_MOd52GeGx905FIpfjNo6M8HI1MahL_jm77elCti1lRzT6aT71JeDhNtF4mogtlvzHZ1tbtC3W8EcMEFdUSpa1l3BqtN2F0o25MUpDuY/s320/starwars.png" width="320" /></a></div>King of geeks, <a href="http://xkcd.com/">xkcd</a>, points out in a <a href="http://xkcd.com/903/">recent comic</a> that on Wikipedia, if you take any article and click on the first link not in (parentheses) or <i>italics</i>, then repeat, you eventually end up at the page for "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy">Philosophy</a>". For example, the first link on the page for "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars">Star Wars</a>" is "Space operate", which leads to "Speculative fiction", and so on.<br />
<br />
Two sites that follow the links for you are <a href="http://ryanelmquist.com/cgi-bin/xkcdwiki">http://ryanelmquist.com/cgi-bin/xkcdwiki</a> and <a href="http://www.xefer.com/2011/05/wikipedia">http://www.xefer.com/2011/05/wikipedia</a>.<br />
<br />
All the terms I've chosen seem to work. I've created a graph of them below, showing how they all converge on "Philosophy":<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1eGkUm0eAlqUcj9TUwtAXJomxoi0hq5kHmMl0Hbs69fvCxF7V1DJ5xT8_whXBndSQ3XXw4aKpulKPb5bHr1e5PeAHn65AgrnkflQti1U5c9FaMzyrSVEkomu3cIw9w5xq6dX-10jEdGo/s1600/philosophy2.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="538" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1eGkUm0eAlqUcj9TUwtAXJomxoi0hq5kHmMl0Hbs69fvCxF7V1DJ5xT8_whXBndSQ3XXw4aKpulKPb5bHr1e5PeAHn65AgrnkflQti1U5c9FaMzyrSVEkomu3cIw9w5xq6dX-10jEdGo/s640/philosophy2.png" width="640" /></a></div><br />
My question is: what does the "philosophy" page link to? At this moment, it links to "reason", which links to "rationality", which leads back to "philosophy". This means that all pages eventually end in "reason" or "rationality" as well.<br />
<br />
It seems like there must be some deep principle behind this, so I'm going to take a stab at what this is: the Enlightenment.<br />
<br />
I don't think this graph defines a "natural law", that philosophy is the basis for all things. Instead, I think this is a cultural artifact, that we in modern, Western culture define everything in terms of philosophy and reason.<br />
<br />
For example, the American right wing has created their own "<a href="conservapedia.com/">Conservapedia</a>" to combat what they see as left-wing bias in Wikipedia. Those articles don't converge. A tested many terms, and each ended in a loop rather than a "philosophy" or "reason".<br />
<br />
Did we do that before the Renaissance/Enlightenment? If we gathered up all pre-Renaissance writings in Europe, filtered just the pages that attempted to "define" or "explain" things, and conducted a similar experience, what would happen? Would they lead to loops? Would they converge on something? I suspect that in pre-Enlightenment Europe or modern Islam, they would converge to religion, not reason.<br />
<br />
Or what about ancient Chinese thought? Confucianism is a system of though that's dominated China and the far east for 2500 years. If we applied the same sort of trick, what would everything lead to? Would it be some Confucian principle like "governance" or "duty"?Robert Grahamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09879238874208877740noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3027053680210348378.post-89310202957129478002011-05-23T22:27:00.000-07:002011-05-23T22:27:17.439-07:00Have the Democrats Lost Their Minds?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgC5b2u8oVgyU5Kl-ofpafgY6e_pDDu2j_KEUmPlosJBXpHTGP3yCkpgPGXPGW-e48yJuqmufOPFDQjk-7mSu_UYbp5Lt54MhBCbtyg3RIifKqFFX9_gpAsfKAZss49faLKLj8hNKIgi70/s1600/CA_110523_crazyRepublicans.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="181" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgC5b2u8oVgyU5Kl-ofpafgY6e_pDDu2j_KEUmPlosJBXpHTGP3yCkpgPGXPGW-e48yJuqmufOPFDQjk-7mSu_UYbp5Lt54MhBCbtyg3RIifKqFFX9_gpAsfKAZss49faLKLj8hNKIgi70/s320/CA_110523_crazyRepublicans.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>One of the more vicious lies by the left-wing is that they are somehow more scientific or intelligent than the right-wing, such as in this <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2295128/"><i>Slate</i> article on global warming, birtherism, evolution, and the debt ceiling</a>.<br />
<br />
But the left really isn't any better. For every Republican that believes in the "birther" conspiracy, there is a Democrat that believes in the "truther" conspiracy that George Bush was partly responsible for 9/11.<br />
<br />
The Republican view on taxes/spending is the mirror image of the Democrat view. As the <i>Slate</i> article points out, spending cannot be reduced to the point where it matches taxes. QED, taxes must be raised, despite Republican's claim the contrary. However, our current spending commitments are so high, that no amount of new taxes can pay for them. QED, spending must be cut, in particular, Medicare and social security must be reformed, despite Democrat's claim to the contrary.<br />
<br />
But it is scientific issues where Democrats are most egregiously off-base. Their overestimation of warming is no more scientific than the Republican's underestimation of warming. Those who deny any warming have occurred are no less scientific than Al Gore's doomsday scenario. The basic science shows conclusively that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, that mankind has raised the amount in the atmosphere, and that the planet has warmed – but that the amount contributed by mankind is minor. The evidence of the "scientific consensus" of the United Nations proving that mankind has caused major changes is tenuous at best, relying upon computer models, irreproducible statistical results, and other quackery. Yet, Democrats make no attempt to debate this scientific evidence, they instead focus on the moral debate.<br />
<br />
Democrats have completely destroyed the credibility of "science" in the debate over evolution. What makes science better than religion is that when scientists are unsure of something, they admit it, rather than make up stuff. Some of the evidence of evolution is rock solid, such as the fact that the Earth is several billion years old, and that species inhabiting the planet have changed over time. Other parts are just guesses. Scientists haven't a clue as to how life began. Deities or space aliens seeding life on earth is as good a theory as anything scientists have come up with. Yet, rather than admit the areas of doubt, scientists treat Darwin's evolution as a form of religion – you must believe in all of it, even the areas scientists are unsure of. The reason the religious right is concerned is not because science competes with religion, but there is a new state-supported religion competing with their religion. The best way to convince the religious about evolution is to be more scientific, not more religious.<br />
<br />
Politics is inherently stupid. Politicians don't get the opportunity to discuss these nuances and have to stick to a "message". In the last presidential election, the Republican candidates were asked in a debate whether they believed in evolution. Some (e.g. McCain) said yes, some (e.g. Huckabee) said no. Regardless of their simple answer, though, they all turned out to believe the same thing: that both Darwin's natural selection and God played a roll. Thus, the short answer might be "no new taxes", "no evolution", "no global warming", but you have to look further to find out the long answer.<br />
<br />
I'm a typical Republican. I believe we have to raise taxes, that Obama was born an American in Hawaii, that the earth is warming, that manmade carbon dioxide has something to do with that warming, and that natural selection is primarily responsible for the diversity of species we see, including man. My beliefs are normal – it's the Democrat's beliefs that are crazy.Robert Grahamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09879238874208877740noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3027053680210348378.post-42571322915277522642011-04-07T15:14:00.000-07:002011-04-07T16:51:13.669-07:00Please oppose JP Barlow's attacks on free speechI follow some people on Twitter because I have respect for them, such as <a href="https://twitter.com/#%21/declanm">@declanm</a>. I follow others because they are idiots -- but iconic idiots. That's why I follow <a href="https://twitter.com/#%21/JPBarlow">@JPBarlow</a>: he keeps me up to date with the idiocy in the world. A good example is a recent retweet of his:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZhExel3ad4n4I7MaXscGDdGaRYoDSWtY0-eSuRWcvV1H2hoA9I37-JO8tyFSJGPy6-5U4lE3Q1xh6o00z4yjME8EDLxaH158sNJ6krm4lBFuhG0y1mnoMq4PjBIdXpPSyAvnYPlvBY_w/s1600/jpbarlow1.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZhExel3ad4n4I7MaXscGDdGaRYoDSWtY0-eSuRWcvV1H2hoA9I37-JO8tyFSJGPy6-5U4lE3Q1xh6o00z4yjME8EDLxaH158sNJ6krm4lBFuhG0y1mnoMq4PjBIdXpPSyAvnYPlvBY_w/s1600/jpbarlow1.png" /></a></div><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
That links to this "petition" at <a href="http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/stop-attacking-silencing-people-online/">http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/stop-attacking-silencing-people-online/</a>:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcKe_NWEm0uAc-Ux8Ds8KgeYPxC0N2Iwb4x6qXI0ZucmvB37ELLbkEwNW6y-AenjJS6AiPs4nKctRyvFi4rQdssbFoB_4LtzPQ85NS1ZD2nz4TNHp-8sMsduyF0lDSmp4usSOVCyHkAEs/s1600/jpbarlow2.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="291" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcKe_NWEm0uAc-Ux8Ds8KgeYPxC0N2Iwb4x6qXI0ZucmvB37ELLbkEwNW6y-AenjJS6AiPs4nKctRyvFi4rQdssbFoB_4LtzPQ85NS1ZD2nz4TNHp-8sMsduyF0lDSmp4usSOVCyHkAEs/s320/jpbarlow2.png" width="320" /></a></div><br />
I'm bemused by this, because it's a petition <i>against</i> free speech, not <i>for</i> free speech. The petition says "Stop Attacking People Online". They think I should not be able to insult @JPBarlow by (rightly) calling him an idiot.<br />
<br />
Like most people, I'm against physical threats, those things that make reasonable people afraid for their lives, but that's not what this petition is about. It against making people "threatened with being the target of abuse, harassment or lies". It's about making discourse "civil".<br />
<br />
But healthy discourse isn't civil.<br />
<br />
Indeed, making discourse civil is how despotic countries suppress it. China, like many governments in the world, claims to support speech, but it outlaws speech that would "disrupt the public order". It also doesn't allow "insults" of politicians. The thing is, if you have a corrupt government ruthlessly clinging to power, there is no way to challenge it that doesn't insult politicians and disrupt the public order.<br />
<br />
Even in our otherwise "free" country, much speech is suppressed due to uncivil "political correctness", especially on college campuses. An excellent example of this was the recent "<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoLLEZlpUxk">Asians in the Library</a>" video controversy. This video by a UCLA student criticized, among other things, Asians talking on their phones in the library. It was a bit racist and a bit offensive -- but that doesn't mean it was invalid speech. It is indeed irritating when foreigners are ignorant of native social conventions, like when I go to Japan and jabber on my phone while on the subway (they really really hate that). The student got death threats. UCLA investigated -- not the death threats, but whether they could <a href="http://thefire.org/article/12955.html">kick her</a> out of school for the content of her speech.<br />
<br />
I dislike a lot about former US presidential candidate John McCain, but I admired him in the last election. One reason was his staking his career on an unpopular "surge". But a second reason was his uncivil speech. George Bush had said of Putin "I looked the man in the eye; I found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy", but McCain said "I looked into Mr. Putin's eyes and I saw three things -- a K and a G and a B". Putin is a despot and there is no civil way of saying so.<br />
<br />
I work in an industry (cybersecurity) where groupthink and flawed critical thinking are pervasive. A lot of beliefs in our industry have no rational basis. When the opposing side is just a bunch of inane platitudes ("You can't have too much security"), you can't rationally debate them. The best way is to mock them.<br />
<br />
So, in conclusion, I urge you to oppose the attacks on free speech by @JPBarlow and his friends. We need vigorous, healthy, and free speech, not "civil" speech.<br />
<br />
<hr /><small> @JPBarlow responds:</small><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdtYoNvhYdUT6swJYc8ePGUbM9bqpq-JR84ltrm8wiHZy64v0VplbkYHk5gsWeDfmRxMdsu_g8DI4Q8mWEvHME5sSdtLNd3brOpBoudo0FbfkzyTDmQ483IZI63YxdEVbW-IBxLbx-Xkk/s1600/jpbarlow3.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="54" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdtYoNvhYdUT6swJYc8ePGUbM9bqpq-JR84ltrm8wiHZy64v0VplbkYHk5gsWeDfmRxMdsu_g8DI4Q8mWEvHME5sSdtLNd3brOpBoudo0FbfkzyTDmQ483IZI63YxdEVbW-IBxLbx-Xkk/s320/jpbarlow3.png" width="320" /></a></div><small>Defending the rights of jerks is not a defense of free speech. We defend the right of Nazi's to march in the United States only because they aren't a political force, then pat ourselves on the back for how how high-minded we are. If neo-Nazi's became a potent political force in America, that would change, and we (as a country) would start banning them like they do in Europe. If your defense of the speaker isn't unpopular, then you really aren't being all that high-minded. Today in a America, it means defending the rights of the Koch brothers or George Soros when so many hate them, not defending the right of Westboro Baptist (who are even more disliked, but nobody is threatened by them). Laws against cyberbullying are coming, and they are going to have a chilling effect on free speech.<br />
<br />
To be fair, JPBarlow isn't an idiot -- it's just that sometimes he says idiotic things because nobody challenges him.</small>Robert David Grahamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08823277317516618851noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3027053680210348378.post-25353717003972495962011-03-22T06:29:00.000-07:002011-03-22T06:29:32.700-07:00Empirical IssuesTwo fascinating posts from the Volokh Conspiracy:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://volokh.com/2011/03/16/what-if-liberals-and-libertarians-agreed-on-empirical-questions/">What if Liberals and Libertarians Agreed on Empirical Questions?</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://volokh.com/2011/03/17/what-if-libertarians-and-conservatives-agreed-on-empirical-issues/">What if Libertarians and Conservatives Agreed on Empirical Issues?</a>Robert David Grahamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08823277317516618851noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3027053680210348378.post-26137893903195392552010-11-13T01:55:00.000-08:002010-11-13T01:58:19.090-08:00Review: Decision Points, by George Bush<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYh835BjjWtxg2Clw7xZmA_wuV71yxHwiyaOaPp_lLwsVR33Q49Og3ymddb2flu8cEARNpmrUQCIvH-vn_ti6ndeQFnIH3gXMBwpZC2YgT2ecmpmVupctkt1IKqaXKqLfovd6gb911uz0/s1600/decision-points.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYh835BjjWtxg2Clw7xZmA_wuV71yxHwiyaOaPp_lLwsVR33Q49Og3ymddb2flu8cEARNpmrUQCIvH-vn_ti6ndeQFnIH3gXMBwpZC2YgT2ecmpmVupctkt1IKqaXKqLfovd6gb911uz0/s200/decision-points.jpg" width="200" /></a></div><i>This one of many <a href="http://blog.robertgraham.com/search/label/book%20report">books I'm reading on my Kindle</a></i><br />
<br />
So here's the thing about Bush's memoirs: it's not a debate. He's not trying to justify, but simply explain, his decisions. It's a dry book. Much of it is boring play-by-play commentary, but occasionally it's a fascinating description of what really happened.<br />
<br />
Bush is not introspective. He does not believe in second guessing decisions with the benefit of hindsight. It's not important what we know now; what's important is what he knew then. The purpose of his book was to explain what he knew then.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
Everybody knew Saddam Hussein had WMDs before we invaded Iraq, the fact that he didn't is irrelevant to the decision to invade. Questions like "Would have you decided differently with what you know now?" make no sense to Bush. Sure, we know now Iraq had no WMDs, but that doesn't change what people believed then. It's like asking if Batman could beat Spiderman in a fight. Sure, lots of people would love to discuss that, but that's an imaginary world.<br />
<br />
Bush's lack of introspection or doubt defines his character. But is also defines his adversaries, the liberal pundits, who want to cast doubts on his decisions. Liberal pundits are frustrated that they can't get Bush to admit he was wrong about WMDs. They just can't grasp Bush's answer, that the only "right" decision at the time would assume that Iraq had WMDs. Even if he decided not to invade, he still would have had to do something about the WMDs that everyone believed existed.<br />
<br />
Waterboarding is another good example. Bush's lawyers advised him that it was a legal interrogation method. And therefore, it was legal. Even I get a little frustrated with Bush's obstinacy on this issue, because he can't grasp the idea that just because his lawyers said it was legal doesn't make it so. But on the hand, I can see his point: the information he had available at the time was that it was legal, and therefore, any decision he mad had to be based upon that as being the "fact".<br />
<br />
I learned from the book that only 3 people were waterboarded during Bush's presidency. I had never heard that before -- the media leaves the impression it was widely used on the nearly thousand people that went through Guantanamo.Those three people were <a href="http://en.wikipedia.com/wiki/Khalid_Sheikh_Mohammed" title="Khalid Sheikh Mohammed">Khalid Sheikh Mohammed</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.com/wiki/Abu_Zubaydah" title="Abu Zubaydah">Abu Zubaydah</a>, and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.com/wiki/Abd_al-Rahim_al-Nashiri" title="Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri">Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri</a>. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the guy that planned almost all Al Qaeda's major terrorist attacks, including 9/11. He was the most important Al Qaeda guy we wanted to capture -- more important even than Bin Laden.<br />
<br />
But here's the question I'd ask Bush: "If wateboarding was as legal as you say, why only 3?". I think Bush is being a bit disingenuous here. <br />
<br />
That's the sort of question his opponents should ask. Liberals make a lot of good arguments NOW about waterboarding, but what's important is what Bush knew THEN. Back then, he was faced with a little known technique that was nearly certain to stop another attack on the scale of 9/11.<br />
<br />
Another interesting bit was his handling of Katrina. His book describes how he was engaged with preparing for the hurricane before it even hit, and was continually engaged from then on. And by the way, all this is documented facts, so he's not making any of this up. This paints a different picture than how the mainstream media describes it. He probably deserves some criticism (a better leader would have overcome the obstacles he describes in his book), but it's clear he doesn't deserve the derision he continues to get about Katrina.<br />
<br />
Though the biggest value of his book isn't these great "debates", but the look into his presidency, his character, and his relationships with other people. While he doesn't appear to be any great intellectual, Bush comes across as a likable, honest guy. The man I see in his book is vastly different than the man I see caricatured in the media, especially on left-wing shows like Jon Stewart's.Robert David Grahamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08823277317516618851noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3027053680210348378.post-3380887023453579992010-09-12T17:57:00.000-07:002010-09-13T10:06:02.050-07:00What I remember on 9/11Twitter this weekend is full of messages like "never forget" referring to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11">9/11 terrorist attacks</a>, but I think people have already forgotten. 9/11 wasn't just a tragedy, like an earthquake or tsunami; it was an attack. It was part of a conflict that is still unresolved.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
As our presidents (Bush and Obama) remind us, we are not at war with the religion of Islam. That's true, but Islam is not just a religion. It is also an ideology shared by over a billion Muslims. This ideology disagrees with out views on freedom of speech, separation of church and state, and the equality of woman. There is no "moderate majority" that agree with us on these points -- the vast majority disagree (according to surveys like those from the Pew Research Center). Thus, while we are not in conflict with the religion of Islam, we are certainly in conflict with the ideology.<br />
<br />
Ayan Hirsi Ali describes this best in her books <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infidel_(book)">Infidel</a></i> and <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomad:_From_Islam_to_America">Nomad</a></i>. These are autobiographical works telling her story about growing up in the Islamic country <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia">Somalia</a>, escaping from an arranged marriage to Holland, and rising to become a member of the Dutch parliament.<br />
<br />
In her books, she tells of her struggle to answer the question "Why is the West so prosperous and happy, while Islamic countries (especially Somalia) are not?". Her answer is because the West went through the Age of Enlightenment, and learned to put reason above emotion, to question institutions, customs, and morals. She claims that the Islamic world has yet to go through such a change -- and that Islam will constantly be in conflict with the West until that happens.<br />
<br />
Ayan describes this in a more confrontational way. While both ideologies want the same thing (peace and prosperity), both ideologies are not equal. One is better than the other. The West's ideology is better than Islam's. We should stand up for the West's ideals.<br />
<br />
An example of this is religious tolerance. Muslims overwhelmingly support tolerance of other religions. Their history on this is better than ours. While the "Inquisition" of the Catholic Church was burning non-believers, Christians and Jews were living harmoniously in Islamic countries. Even today, Christians live relatively undisturbed in Islamic theocracies like Iran.<br />
<br />
Yet it is not so much the goal of religious tolerance that is important so much how we get there.<br />
<br />
What Muslims believe is that we should not needlessly criticize, insult, or mock each other's religion. If everyone does this, then we will have peace.<br />
<br />
The West believes the opposite. We believe that we should ignore the criticisms, insults, and mocking by others. We should not get upset over such trivial things. If everyone does this, then we will have peace.<br />
<br />
As Ayan points out in her books, one of these ideologies is better than the other. Restrictions on "insults" always have a chilling effect on free speech, because somebody will always find a reason to be insulted by speech they don't like. You can't stop everyone from being insulting; there will always be some jerk wanting to burn the Koran inciting violence. Therefore, Ayan argues, the West's values of ignoring insults is inherently a better ideology than Islam's value of not giving insult.<br />
<br />
Ayan tells stories about how as a child, she was taught to respond to insults with violence. She also tells about how, when working as a translator, she had to translate for a Somali family whose child was in trouble for fighting in elementary school. The Somali's kept arguing with the teacher "but the other kid insulted our kid", believing that this would get their child out of trouble. The child was only doing what the parents had taught him, to respond to insults with violence. Ayan had to translate not only language but culture, explaining that in West, we teach our children that violence is never justified, and that insults should be ignored.<br />
<br />
Yet, as adults, we seem to forget this when it's convenient. A good example is the American politician <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin">Sarah Palin</a>, a leader in the opposition party. Every month she expresses outrage over some new "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politically_correct">politically incorrect</a>" insult against her involving the clothes she wears, the fact she's a woman, her retarded child, or an off-color joke involving her children. Rather than ignoring these insults, she magnifies and distorts them to incite her followers.<br />
<br />
Sarah Palin is one of many who oppose the "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_Zero_Mosque">Ground Zero Mosque</a>", because it insults the memory of those who died on 9/11, and is seen as Muslims celebrating their "victory" over the Twin Towers. Sure, the "mosque" is a bit insulting, but here's the thing: <b>get over it</b>. The reason Al Qaeda attacked us was because they were violently opposed to our Western ideals. We can't then turn around and ignore these ideals when we feel insulted. No matter how much we find the "Ground Zero Mosque" insulting (and it is insulting), the only proper response is to "turn the other cheek" and to "forgive those who trespass against us".<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgD0L0K1iG1tMmeUJS2vHs6Vy-ubDrOL7G_vG7zjimG3yj_MoJJJGsRheJPiuYhWExJqKCw073hnAdMtosMru_r4_O_O5IQd5YXVj2lbW8gTASKF36uGSHO8skr2-4jSeA4biX9zeE84P4/s1600/oreilly1.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" ox="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgD0L0K1iG1tMmeUJS2vHs6Vy-ubDrOL7G_vG7zjimG3yj_MoJJJGsRheJPiuYhWExJqKCw073hnAdMtosMru_r4_O_O5IQd5YXVj2lbW8gTASKF36uGSHO8skr2-4jSeA4biX9zeE84P4/s320/oreilly1.png" /></a></div>We have also forgotten our principles in the "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Qur'an-burning_controversy">Koran burning controversy</a>. We all agree that the guy, Pastor Jones, is a jerk and a nutcase. But here's the thing: <b>he is only a jerk</b>. He is not some harbinger of the apocalypse. He is not responsible for the violence that has erupted in the Muslim world protesting the burning. It's those who perpetrate this violence who are responsible. Every time we credit him for "<a href="http://video.foxnews.com/v/4335524/the-downside-of-freedom/?playlist_id=87796">causing so much damage by threatening to burn the Quran</a>", we inflate his importance.<br />
<br />
Instead of inflating his importance, our leaders should do the opposite and largely ignore him. When forced to confront the issue, our leaders should say something like "I condemn his actions, but he's just a nutcase unworthy of our attention". Our leaders should do this because, indeed, he's just a nutcase unworthy of our attention.<br />
<br />
Instead of <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxZvNwYTOvc">appeasing the Muslim angry</a> over the incident, President Obama should have used this as a "teachable moment". What we Americans stand for is the right to speak, no matter how much we are offended by that speech. While our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan are controversial, our goals are clear: we want them (the Muslims in those countries) to have to same freedoms we have. We want them to have the freedom to burn the American flag, the Bible, and yes, the Koran too.<br />
<br />
What concerns me is not just the conflict in the real world, but also in cyberspace, where "cyberbullying" has become a big issue. There are many who want laws outlawing this. But this is the same free-speech issue. There is no way to stop cyberbullying that does not also have chilling effects on speech. Rather than fighting for laws to stop the bullies, we should be teaching our kids how to resolve conflicts, especially online. For example, if other kids are spreading a rumor online about you, your proper response is to firmly deny it, but otherwise ignore it. Getting upset about it is exactly the wrong thing to do.<br />
<br />
I fully support the fine art of Internet "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)">trolls</a>", like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4chan">4chan</a> /b/ anonymous. While I would probably dislike these guys in person (they are just a bunch of jerks), trolls teach people the lesson to not get so upset over things. I've been trolled. People have posted things in mailing lists that have really upset me. And then I later realize that they don't care one way or the other, they were just trying to make me upset. This has tought me how small I was, and that I should learn to rise above such petty squabbles. As they had. It is only when you don't get upset and take serious what people (usually strangers) post online can you truly live at peace with yourself, and others.<br />
<br />
<b>Summary</b><br />
<br />
What I choose to remember this September 11 is to stand up for the principles they attacked on that day. One of those principles is "<i>sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me</i>". Rather than appease those every time they perceive an insult from America, I'm going to point out that they are wrong for getting offended.Robert David Grahamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08823277317516618851noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3027053680210348378.post-4831218877491908502010-09-02T17:48:00.000-07:002010-09-02T23:05:51.785-07:00Review: The Girl With a Dragon Tattoo, by Stieg Larsson<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhv4RkRDNf4q4Nqdi4Qp4kSDrIsCCxDBWmAruCTM5sQ-XQ4CqOj38sMCaj6idXJFjThH0Pc2mSGgJLClJyXt1vEEfxB5UBp5yJOY6FAsRswJ6g3LfkBC0a8kctetOJF2JM6evFjYOm74YI/s1600/reivew-dragon-tattoo.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhv4RkRDNf4q4Nqdi4Qp4kSDrIsCCxDBWmAruCTM5sQ-XQ4CqOj38sMCaj6idXJFjThH0Pc2mSGgJLClJyXt1vEEfxB5UBp5yJOY6FAsRswJ6g3LfkBC0a8kctetOJF2JM6evFjYOm74YI/s200/reivew-dragon-tattoo.jpg" width="200" /></a></div><i>This one of many <a href="http://blog.robertgraham.com/search/label/book%20report">books I'm reading on my Kindle</a></i><br />
<br />
This is the first book to sell a million copies on the Kindle. That's a good hint about the kind of book this is: if you like gadgets like the Kindle, there is a good chance you'll like this book.<br />
<br />
This book is the first of a series. It's a prequel for the real story that takes place in the next two books. By the way, the protagonist is a journalist (modeled on Stieg Larsson himself), the "girl" in question is the subject of the stories.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
I know a number of people who have tried to read this book, but given up. They describe the book as "dense". That's a good description. There is a lot of stuff going on in each and every page, most of which doesn't move the story forward. The author died before the stories were published. Therefore, they lack a good editor who tells the author to go back and clean up crap.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, this might be the reason the stories so popular. They contain what the author wanted for himself, not what an editor wanted for the public. As a result, the story and the style is a lot more original than mass-market novels. <br />
<br />
I am a "hacker" (well, a computer security professional), and the girl that is the subject of the story is a "hacker". That means everyone like me has probably read this story. Don't worry, though, the technical aspects of hacking are almost non-existent, so they don't disturb the flow of the story. Why I find interesting about this is the way outsiders (those not in the hacking community) view hackers.<br />
<br />
There are a lot of themes in these three books. Stieg Larsson is not just trying to tell a story, but convince readers of his views on a number of topics, ranging from the state of journalism today to the problems in the Swedish government. (These are the sorts of things an editor would fix).<br />
<br />
The most interesting aspect of the stories is the "Swedishisms". The books are so very, very Swedish. For example, every time one character offers another character money, they suggest "…and I can give you cash so you don't have to report it to the government". That's because income taxes in Sweden are the highest in the western world. Everybody looks for ways to avoid paying taxes. Nobody thinks twice about it. In much the way we don't think it's immoral to speed in the car, Swedes don't think it's particular immoral to avoid taxes.<br />
<br />
As you read the books, look for odd things like the characters not driving cars. That's a Swedishism, derived from the weird tax laws on automobiles. In contrast, our government largely subsidizes automobiles.<br />
<br />
As a journalist, Larsson hates what journalism has become. Rather than focusing on the "truth", it instead focuses on sensationalist stories that sell papers. Rather than challenging those in power, it too often becomes their tool. Actually, it's the same here in America.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Conclusion</b><br />
<br />
<br />
I read the books for the same reason I read <i>The Da Vinci Code</i>: I saw so many other people reading the books (such as on airplanes), I had to read it too.<br />
<br />
If you can get past the fact that they really aren't well crafted books (they need editing), I think you'll enjoy the total originality of them. They are chock full of interesting themes that the author was interested in -- but which a good editor would have told him to remove.Robert David Grahamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08823277317516618851noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3027053680210348378.post-52331514912751553672010-09-02T17:14:00.000-07:002010-11-15T14:00:08.265-08:00Review: Infidel, by Ayan Hirsi Ali<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibocRkNgSwZHxXabEqEzpTMbSNKtcWw_w7utV17KdhsWa5zpDVivdSIIwD1FFtdE3stXydbfnUpdwYuJ6Zm687wSb1ngmpGKQqaaifTsyk_Z6Zv6QO2sa6nx9nAMXDngPPhvKvwd-dT3A/s1600/review-infidel.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibocRkNgSwZHxXabEqEzpTMbSNKtcWw_w7utV17KdhsWa5zpDVivdSIIwD1FFtdE3stXydbfnUpdwYuJ6Zm687wSb1ngmpGKQqaaifTsyk_Z6Zv6QO2sa6nx9nAMXDngPPhvKvwd-dT3A/s200/review-infidel.jpg" width="200" /></a></div><i>This one of many <a href="http://blog.robertgraham.com/search/label/book%20report">books I'm reading on my Kindle</a></i><br />
<br />
<a href=”http://www.amazon.com/Infidel-ebook/dp/B000NY12CI/ref=kinw_dp_ke?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2”>Infidel</a> is the book I’ve most recommended to family/friends in recent times. Ayaan Hirsi Ali was born in Somalia and raised a devout Muslim. She fled an arranged marriage (and probable honor killing) to the West, and denounced Islam. She became a member of the Dutch parliament, but had to flee the country after the producer of her film criticizing Islam was murdered, with a note attached to his chest addressed to Ayaan. She is now the leading critic of Islam. Her writing is compelling, and the most original thing you’ll read on the subject.<br />
<br />
I love watching her on video. She’s quiet and humble – right up to moment where she <a href=”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08EYqwyns-k”>savages the interviewer</a> with her superior intellect and arguments.<br />
<br />
Her book has two points. The first is that it describes her early life and what it’s really like to grow up under Islam. Frankly, all sides of the argument are bigoted in America. There is no difference between the left-wing who claims that Islam is a religion of peace, and the right wing who claims all Muslims are violent. Both are totally ignorant of what Islam really is. What Ayaan teaches us in her book is that Muslims are more nuanced than that. Her book is awesome in the way that it teaches us to see that Muslims are people, and that they share the same good and bad traits as any other people.<br />
<br />
We see, for example, that her grandmother is stern, but in her own way, a loving caregiver that wants what’s best for her granddaughter. Which is why she pins the young 9 year old Ayaan to ground and cuts of her clitoris, according to the age-old practice to make sure women are kept pure until marriage.<br />
<br />
Which leads to the second point of her book: there is something wrong with Islam. She describes her journey settling in a Western country, seeing that everything she was taught about the West was wrong. In particular, she is forced to confront the fact that the West is peaceful, prosperous, and happy, unlike Islamic country. Her tail in the second half of the book is finding the reason why.<br />
<br />
Her answer is simply this: the West went through the Enlightenment.<br />
<br />
We in the West grew up with the Enlightenment, but we have lost our way. We no longer know precisely what it is. We don’t stand up for the principles of the Enlightenment. While Ayaan is known as a fierce critic of Islam and a champion of women’s rights, I think she is also the most interesting champion for the ideals of the Enlightenment.<br />
<br />
The point of her book is this: Islam is also a political ideology. While Bush and Obama claim we are not at war with Islam, Ayaan says we are. While we aren’t at war with the religion, we are at war with the un-enlightened political ideology side of Islam. While we might not think we are at war with Islam, Muslims certainly think they are at war with us.<br />
<br />
<b>Conclusion</b><br />
<br />
You should read this book because it will help you see Muslims as people, not just things.<br />
<br />
You should read this book as one of the most interesting descriptions of Enlightenment. <br />
<br />
You should read this book because the conflict between the Enlightened West and Islam has become the new Cold War, and this is the most important guide to that Cold War.Robert David Grahamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08823277317516618851noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3027053680210348378.post-51966910074924433222010-09-02T16:05:00.000-07:002010-09-02T18:59:19.583-07:00Review: Shards of Honor, by Lois McMaster Bujold (sci-fi)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinoVDXRftEmbxPBzIWy729LHz0WMMACBQim9UJYYGvoLweN-06BYT2pBG5bXkMuQIoCNpY79YoUJhdT4j9Pa7a-BI41grySmeKJGP90wtFZuAQFrzqmMMcr4PDJNEdic2Q7-aTgUsyvLU/s1600/review-shards-of-honor.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinoVDXRftEmbxPBzIWy729LHz0WMMACBQim9UJYYGvoLweN-06BYT2pBG5bXkMuQIoCNpY79YoUJhdT4j9Pa7a-BI41grySmeKJGP90wtFZuAQFrzqmMMcr4PDJNEdic2Q7-aTgUsyvLU/s200/review-shards-of-honor.JPG" width="134" /></a></div><i>This one of many <a href="http://blog.robertgraham.com/search/label/book%20report">books I'm reading on my Kindle</a></i><br />
<br />
This is the first in a series of award-winning sci-fi books. Three other books in the series have won the Hugo Award, the highest honor in sci-fi. That means, if you are into sci-fi, the series is a "must read". This book is also a "trashy romance", so even if you don't like sci-fi, you might find something to like in it.<br />
<br />
But neither is the reason I recommend this book. Instead, I recommend it because it's "crafted". Most fiction is written quickly, without little thought about the art and craft of writing. Most fiction is easy, and stupid; I think this book is a bit smarter.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
To begin with, there is the well-developed backstory. While this is the first novel in the series, you get the impression that there it's more like the tenth. It feels like there are nine other novels in the series that have led to this point.<br />
<br />
The backstory is based on the typical sci-fi physics of "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole">wormholes</a>", which allow spaceships to take a short cut from one solar system to the next. Mankind has spread out, jumping through wormhole to wormhole, colonizing the galaxy. Sci-fi writers love wormholes because they create a geography to the universe. In much the same way as mountains and rivers created natural boundaries for countries on Earth, wormholes dictate the boundaries between galactic empires.<br />
<br />
Imagine a planet whose wormhole disappears. Now alone, cut off from the rest of humanity, it falls back into savagery. Then, a hundred years later, a new wormhole is found, reconnecting it back to galactic civilization. There is now a conflict between the "old ways" and the "new ways".<br />
<br />
That would be a fascinating story, but one that McMaster-Bujold doesn't tell. Instead, her stories take place a generation later. This is just the backstory, one that is slowly told over the course of the entire series. The author rivals such stories as <i>Dune</i> and <i>Star Wars</i> with incredible well thought-out backstories.<br />
<br />
The second thing I like best about this series is the conflict between good and evil. In most books, this is simple. Take the Harry Potter series, for example. Harry is the protagonist, the "good guy" in the books. But what precisely makes him good? He breaks rules, acts poorly toward people he doesn't like, and doesn't do anything of merit other than resist the "bad guys". He doesn't stand up for any principle other than he is in the "in" group, fighting the "out" group. He is the "good guy" simply because the stories are told from his viewpoint.<br />
<br />
In the stories by McMaster-Bujold, however, the conflict between good and evil is much more complex. Each character is given its own private backstory, principles they live buy. The characters struggle to follow those principles. There is no real "bad guy". One character is a murderer and a rapist, but he is shown in a sympathetic light. If anything, he is one of the "good guys" in the story.<br />
<br />
And that is the origin of the word "honor" in the book's title. The characters are thrown into impossible situations where all choices are bad, but some choices are "honorable". Certainly, we like the protagonists in the story, but we are under no illusions that they are "good" - it's just that it's the decisions they have to make, given their character.<br />
<br />
<br />
Summary<br />
<br />
While books in this series have won awards, they don't make people's lists of the top sci-fi books of all time. I think that's because most sci-fi readers don't appreciate how well they have been crafted. They aren't the familiar "plot drive" or "setting driven" stories of sci-fi, but complex "character driven" novels.<br />
<br />
My favorite stores are those with a complex backstory. I like imagining for myself what that story must be. In fact, I hate it when authors go back and flesh out that backstory. The prequels ruined the <i>Star Wars</i> for me. Likewise, Ann McCaffrey ruined her <i>Pern</i> series by fleshing out her backstory.<br />
<br />
Maybe I'm just fooling myself, and it's just the trashy romance aspect of the story that attracts me. But I think this is one of the best crafted books in sci-fi, and I include it on my "top 10" list of favorite sci-fi books.Robert David Grahamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08823277317516618851noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3027053680210348378.post-63105836985002370282010-09-01T14:04:00.000-07:002011-06-12T19:49:27.608-07:00Review: Economics(2e), by Krugman and Wells<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUNEoEW6shaKB3P08EFaTXVQRJPmeg2cvjeYORPmFJ5dKG4yIwbb2D28_T0RbsM_FcjhCT3rIQBUhoD88nPSFcciXliCbe8uOVIRIs8f1hNvE-gYC5XQr1RVV4wFkKhGcwv02svKjlRHU/s1600/review-economics-krugman.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUNEoEW6shaKB3P08EFaTXVQRJPmeg2cvjeYORPmFJ5dKG4yIwbb2D28_T0RbsM_FcjhCT3rIQBUhoD88nPSFcciXliCbe8uOVIRIs8f1hNvE-gYC5XQr1RVV4wFkKhGcwv02svKjlRHU/s200/review-economics-krugman.JPG" width="151" /></a></div><i>This one of many <a href="http://blog.robertgraham.com/search/label/book%20report">books I'm reading on my Kindle</a></i><br />
<br />
The reason I got this book is because Krugman is a well-known liberal. He writes a blog for the New York Times called "<a href="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/">Conscience of a Liberal</a>". He is a mainstay on news and talk shows, refuting the evil right-wing economists. Having learned economics from evil right-wingers such as <a href="http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com">Greg Mankiw</a>, I wondered how Krugman's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Economics-2e-ebook/dp/B002JVX7HG/ref=kinw_dp_ke?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2">textbook</a> might be different.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
The answer is: it's not. The content is almost identical between the "left-wing" and "right-wing" economic textbooks.<br />
<br />
Take third-world sweatshops, for example. <i>Everybody knows</i> they are evil and should be stamped out. The only people that might be disagree are evil right-wing economists in the pay of the big corporations that exploit sweatshop labor.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.slate.com/id/1918/">That's not true</a>, says Krugman. He describes this as the "sweatshop labor fallacy". His textbook goes on to show what every economics textbook shows: that sweatshops are good. This conclusion is based on the principles of economics, and is so persuasive, that most economists agrees, regardless of their politics.<br />
<br />
And that's the story of economics. There is a lot that economists don't know, things left-wing and right-wing economists disagree about in their blogs (such as what to do about "stimulus spending"). On the other hand, there is a lot that economists do know, where they are in agreement, such as in the benefits of sweatshops.<br />
<br />
If you are learning economics, it doesn't much matter if you learn from Mankiw (right-winger) or Krugman (left-winger). Their textbooks contain much the same content, devoid of politics. I'd probably prefer Mankiw, it seems slightly less "textbooky" and contains more real-world examples, such as news articles showing economics in action. But Krugman's book is also quite good, especially if you are a left-winger suspicious of right-wing bias.<br />
<br />
If you are not learning economics, you should. Imagine you are having a discussion where the other person reveals that, contrary to all scientific evidence, they believe the Earth is only 10,000 years old. An uncomfortable silence follows. That's the way I feel, every time somebody brings up an economics issue, like sweatshops.Robert David Grahamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08823277317516618851noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3027053680210348378.post-14467479714436662222010-09-01T12:58:00.000-07:002010-09-01T14:14:40.925-07:00Review: What's Right with Islam Is What's Right with America, by Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgiVdMfRxEePO2kiygl42NQUz15gcA8abo3e9NEnnsdKA7BXc2zvuVAUujAmxR0xz_BxCp8RcTFv3Bek3uhc3uX-ulIpm8En0YsxPqJX8_Q6Vet1qr9ay78Lgc7i7PWKHPyox5y2cddWX8/s1600/review-imam-faisel.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgiVdMfRxEePO2kiygl42NQUz15gcA8abo3e9NEnnsdKA7BXc2zvuVAUujAmxR0xz_BxCp8RcTFv3Bek3uhc3uX-ulIpm8En0YsxPqJX8_Q6Vet1qr9ay78Lgc7i7PWKHPyox5y2cddWX8/s200/review-imam-faisel.jpg" width="130" /></a></div><i>This one of many <a href="http://blog.robertgraham.com/search/label/book%20report">books I'm reading on my Kindle</a></i><br />
<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faisal_Abdul_Rauf">Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf</a> is the guy building the "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park51">Ground Zero Mosque</a>". His book <i>What's Right with Islam Is What's Right with America</i> tells us what he really thinks of America, in his own words. Is he a radical that hates America? Or a truly moderate Muslim? His book tells us the answer.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
And what he thinks is this: America is great. He loves America, passionately. He is a scholar who has studied the founding principles of this country. He understands (most of) them better than you do. His intellectual understanding of American founding principles means he's probably more of a patriot than you are.<br />
<br />
Yet, it's still the Islam that is transcendent. His book praises the intersection of Islam and America, but only where they agree. He makes the odd claim that American values are based upon the same religious tradition as Islam, if you trace Islam, Christianity, and Judaism back to the founding principles of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham">Abraham</a>. Thus, the American ideology of human rights and democracy aren't secular values, but inherently religious, Abrahamic, values. And therefore, Imam Faisal concludes, America needs to make more religious accommodations for Islam. In particular, he disagrees with our interpretation of "Separation of Church and State" and "Freedom of Speech". He wants America to allow Muslims to use Shariah courts rather than our current secular courts, especially in family matters like marriage and divorce.<br />
<br />
Thus, while he loves America, he loves Islam more.<br />
<br />
The following is an illustrative passage that shows why he loves America:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>"The problem was that Muslim jurists equated any amount of interest, no matter how small, with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury">usury</a>, which the Quran absolutely forbids. This strict prohibition on charging interest still prevails in the Muslim world and has largely prevented it from robustly developing the financial market's institutions of banking, capital markets, and stock exchanges-the foundations of capitalism."</blockquote><br />
I'm accustomed to the American media, with its anti-America anti-capitalism biases. It's refreshing to read such praise for capitalism.<br />
<br />
In other sections, he dissects what's right about the American system of government. For example, he compares our system (separation of powers, independent institutions like the military, central bank, media) with the totalitarianism in most Muslim countries where the government controls everything, and is corrupted by power.<br />
<br />
Here is another demonstrative quote:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Muslims have yet to fully incorporate the institutional expressions of democratic capitalism, defined as the combination of democracy and capitalism, into their various essential institutions: the rule of law (an independent judiciary), human rights, a stable currency, equal opportunity, free markets, social safety nets, and so forth.</blockquote><br />
He just doesn't use these terms abstractly, but concretely describes why each is important. He loves these core American values probably more than you do.<br />
<br />
In the Ground Zero Mosque controversy, many make the claim that he blames America for the 9/11 attacks. That's not precisely true. He does claim that American foreign policy contributed to the attacks, but he lays the blame squarely on the backwardness of the majority of Islamic society. His criticisms of America are that we don't consistently promote freedom. He claims that the Muslims of the world are mad at us, not because we attack Islam, but because we keep human rights and democracy for ourselves, and don't let Muslims have them. Instead, we support dictatorships in Islamic countries as long as the dictators are friendly to America.<br />
<br />
He has two agendas in his book. One is to help Americans understand Islam. The other is to help Muslims understand America. It has been translated into Indonesian, the language of the world's biggest Islamic country, in an effort to help them understand why the American values are more Islamic than those of their own, Islamic, country.<br />
<br />
It is because he this pro-American stance that has led to the State Department funding trips for him abroad, to promote America in Islamic countries. As a scholar who understands both Islam and America, he is appropriate in that roll.<br />
<br />
Yet, for all his pro-Americanism, he is still wrong. He rejects the two items at the core of America's character: freedom of speech, and freedom of religion.<br />
<br />
The best way to describe this is to contrast his writing with those of Ayan Hirsi Ali. She is a Somali refugee that escaped to Holland, eventually becoming a member of their parliament. When she created a film critical of Islam's treatment of woman, her director Theo Van Gogh was murdered by an Islamic extremist. The note attached to his dead body claimed that Ayan Hirsi Ali would be next. She has lived with bodyguards ever since.<br />
<br />
Whereas Imam Faisal attempts to trace American values back to Judeo-Christian religion, Ayan Hirsi Ali traces them back to the Age of Enlightenment.<br />
<br />
Take freedom of speech, for example. Imam Faisal quotes the Quran thusly:<br />
<br />
<blockqutoe></blockqutoe><br />
<blockquote>"Do not curse the [false] gods that they [the polytheists] call upon [in worship] lest they in turn curse God in enmity [to you] out of their [understandable] ignorance" (Quran 6:107-9)."</blockquote><br />
<br />
Imam Faisal believes that many religions (Muslim, Christians, Jews) can live peacefully together, as long as we live with the reasonable restriction on free speech to not insult, mock, or criticize each other's religions.<br />
<br />
Ayan Hirsi Ali disagrees. Critical thinking means you criticize others, to the point of insult. Suppressing insult suppresses reasonable speech as well. She quotes the current Catholic Pope, who in recent speech, claimed that only through critical thinking can we come to know God. Only by criticizing and insulting Jesus can we become true Christians.<br />
<br />
Ayan Hirsi Ali would point to quotes like the following one that American's teach their children:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>"Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me"</blockquote><br />
I other words, the path to peace isn't to censor your own insults, but to ignore the insults of others.<br />
<br />
The Danish cartoons mocking Muhammed are a good example. The TV show South Park is an even better one. It mocks and insults <i>everyone</i>. They show Jesus addicted to Internet porn, and Budha with a coke habit. Yet, their TV network censors South Park's attempt to depict Muhammed. Rather than standing up for the American ideal of free speech, Imam Faisal takes the opposite approach, and claims such speech should be restricted to avoid such insults.<br />
<br />
Even more important is Imam Faisal's proposal that Shariah courts be provided to Muslims in America. There is a very real need for such things. For example, imagine a Muslim immigrant who divorces her husband and returns to her own country. Because the divorce isn't under Shariah law, her country doesn't recognize it, and she cannot remarry.<br />
<br />
But as Ayan Hirsi Ali points out, when other countries have tried to accommodate their Muslim immigrants with Shariah courts, the result is that woman's rights get trampled on. Imam Feisla quotes parts of the Quran that supports women's rights in Shariah courts; Ayan Hirsi Ali quotes the other bits that are hostile to woman. On the whole, the Quran is hostile to women.<br />
<br />
The point of the Age of Enlightenment is that mankind found a different source of knowledge other than just religion. Imam Faisal denies this. While praising the Enlightenment, he claims that it ultimately derives from religion, and thus our "secular" values are just another form of religion. In his view, things like "science" are just another manifestation of God. Ayan Hirsi Ali disagrees, and shows that Enlightenment and "science" are a completely different source of truth altogether. While they can live together, only a fool would claim that scientific results like the "heliocentric model" somehow derive from the Bible or Quran<br />
<br />
<b>Conclusion</b><br />
<br />
I read this book because of the "Ground Zero Mosque" controversy. The left-wing and right-wing in America are using the controversy to rile up their voters. Yet, the arguments of both sides are devoid of meaningful content. The right-wing admits that government can't stop the mosque, so what's the point of getting angry over it? Conversely, the left-wing falsely claims that the right-wing wants to violate their rights and have thee government stop them.<br />
<br />
Imam Faisal chose the spot for his Islamic community-center/mosque precisely because it was close to Ground Zero of the 9/11 attacks. Was this because he's a radical Muslim celebrating the attacks by Muslims against Americans? Or, is this because he's an American and moderate Muslim, who wants to reach out to other Muslims and teach them why America is great?<br />
<br />
After reading his book, I still don't have an answer to that question. On one hand, Imam Faisal clearly loves America. For him, at least, the location is an expression of his pro-Americanism. On the other hand, he doesn't stand up for the secular values of the Enlightenment.<br />
<br />
And for me, it's the later that's important. If I had to tell the world's Muslims what's wrong with Islam, it wouldn't be things like capitalism or democracy. It would be that they have missed their own Enlightenment. My definition of a "moderate Muslim" would be somebody who isn't offended by the Danish cartoons, any more than I'm offended by cartoons that insult the things I believe in. And that definition doesn't include Imam Faisal, despite his pro-American leanings.Robert David Grahamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08823277317516618851noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3027053680210348378.post-5617167106211301662010-08-11T12:29:00.000-07:002010-11-11T01:08:59.883-08:00Visualizing the Laffer CurveFrom <a href="http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2010/08/where-does-laffer-curve-bend.html">Greg Mankiw's blog</a>, this article asks economists "<a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/08/where_does_the_laffer_curve_be.html">Where does the Laffer Curve peak?</a>". I thought I'd graph some of the answers.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
The following is the typical <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve">Laffer curve</a>. At a 0% tax rate, revenue is zero. At 100% tax rate, revenue is again zero, because nobody will work if they give all their income to the government. The peak revenue is somewhere in between.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2G65g57P9lOID0koQBNPcLODbgrAoubXOOHzVhSzpM2e3olQr3CpbC3MrLtU9VlVSM7-pimrMClFLikZ5zZXsVHEkxp1wEqOgBQTQustGN0wz6Gk6RcJ4WoxTZjRz1eDM-xq6DCqDOaU/s1600/image002.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="283" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2G65g57P9lOID0koQBNPcLODbgrAoubXOOHzVhSzpM2e3olQr3CpbC3MrLtU9VlVSM7-pimrMClFLikZ5zZXsVHEkxp1wEqOgBQTQustGN0wz6Gk6RcJ4WoxTZjRz1eDM-xq6DCqDOaU/s400/image002.gif" width="400" /></a></div><br />
<br />
This graph assumes some sort of linear elasticity: if you tax me at 10%, then I work 10% less. This elasticity can be seen in the following graph:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirRUR1H-seSMvfHbYD1G8gu-Fr5uTEOxh_FjHcLkekk12od4C2B2sUea0-Pr8mpdYRK0KuLthxe4BEAo9784Ikzsp7dppyqX5tYiu55253bmufC8X1laMd_W69OPIIaxcqDMpBkRayJf8/s1600/image004.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="283" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirRUR1H-seSMvfHbYD1G8gu-Fr5uTEOxh_FjHcLkekk12od4C2B2sUea0-Pr8mpdYRK0KuLthxe4BEAo9784Ikzsp7dppyqX5tYiu55253bmufC8X1laMd_W69OPIIaxcqDMpBkRayJf8/s400/image004.gif" width="400" /></a></div>Nobody believes this is what the elasticity looks like. Instead, people believe it looks at bit more like the following graph, where workers are relatively insensitive to changes in tax rates when they are low.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFbQ6yZUKM-E2YB-jKTfVhBS6GHNPAsD-W3C4eibhey6361VtusXCT48fs09a7h8zwaj5laouEw2bS4tiBylfEe32hXd0TUw072dPcTRBFyDwP4gM2U9-_nBCalrv0UnwhFh1C0_7ELxI/s1600/image006.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="283" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFbQ6yZUKM-E2YB-jKTfVhBS6GHNPAsD-W3C4eibhey6361VtusXCT48fs09a7h8zwaj5laouEw2bS4tiBylfEe32hXd0TUw072dPcTRBFyDwP4gM2U9-_nBCalrv0UnwhFh1C0_7ELxI/s400/image006.gif" width="400" /></a></div><br />
<br />
This leads to a Laffer curve that is shifted to the right:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjc7um25UcVZGiJb3tfHZJL_k835GVxJmwz78o8YNaH9AD7f3nqN7mv-Gs9a7h7rilD2yOfedcQ7oK9VE8VKFiB4tCNmT04C5q0I_uF870GqOMk23H7CqOCHpYCdUt5xlCvNiwk6WsugWk/s1600/image008.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="283" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjc7um25UcVZGiJb3tfHZJL_k835GVxJmwz78o8YNaH9AD7f3nqN7mv-Gs9a7h7rilD2yOfedcQ7oK9VE8VKFiB4tCNmT04C5q0I_uF870GqOMk23H7CqOCHpYCdUt5xlCvNiwk6WsugWk/s400/image008.gif" width="400" /></a></div><br />
<br />
The more you believe workers are insensitive to tax rates, the more the peak shifts to the right. In this case, the peak has moved from 50% to 65%.<br />
<br />
<b>ANSWER: Saez</b><br />
<br />
Saez, Slemrod, and Giertz have a paper that tries to analyze elasticity. They claim that workers are insensitive to tax rates until they become very high. Their Laffer curve looks like the following:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzDWiV-FD1SaK9Q0Mmv3Tki58-c9u3dsrU8na_IX9l3YubTxdF3I9uWx8PlkkNL_pRVqEv78vElkgPBfgIHH_WbYCzkn_ihD88OBudJHFmD4i6vjY7kiWid9MIgsyHm9NMzVDIfCqQSbc/s1600/image010.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="283" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzDWiV-FD1SaK9Q0Mmv3Tki58-c9u3dsrU8na_IX9l3YubTxdF3I9uWx8PlkkNL_pRVqEv78vElkgPBfgIHH_WbYCzkn_ihD88OBudJHFmD4i6vjY7kiWid9MIgsyHm9NMzVDIfCqQSbc/s400/image010.gif" width="400" /></a></div><br />
<br />
<br />
In this case, they assume a peak around 73%.<br />
<br />
Their paper discusses a lot of other things about the curve. For example, if tax rates where 100%, then income would not actually drop to 0%. Instead, people would find ways of sheltering income from the tax man. For example, they might instead change to corporate taxes, where a corporation would pay the corporate tax rate and purchase everything for the worker. Or, they would move income offshore. Or, they would move into the black market economy and not report income. So, there is a difference in "income" and "taxable income".<br />
<br />
They also point to other policy choices that affect elasticity. Deductions for charitable contributions increase the elasticity on the high end, as rich people would rather give money to charities than to the government. If charities are more efficient at increasing social welfare than the government, then this would be a good thing, despite the fact it reduces government revenue.<br />
<br />
I haven't digested the paper yet, but it's pretty interesting.<br />
<br />
<b>ANSWER: Ludlow and Mankiw</b><br />
<br />
Both Larry Ludlow and Greg Mankiw claim that income tax not only reduces output from workers, but also growth. In other words, if tax rates cause workers to produce 1% less, then they also reduce growth by (let's say) 1%. Thus, instead of growing at 3.00% GDP this year, we'd grow at only 2.97%. This compounds year after year. (Stephen Moore also implies this, but not as strongly).<br />
<br />
Note that they don't say exactly how much it will impact growth -- I'm just making the raw assumption (declines in GDP equivalent to decline in growth) to have something to play with. In the graph below, I start with my "Traditional Laffer #2" graph that peaks at 65%, then assume 3% growth over 10 years, with taxes reducing that growth 1-to-1. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbm5HSWOpuW2qTUq2qiBFgWeAF2pnYoHQ78wl0SXEgMsOkv_MyYX_8T0uZxHWHzhSspHOP7g6qmpaBJoXbHwD5beLaTVcvc16jfevPZa9oCxHMRwEuNGIZ5GGhrBzmQZ2t1Dn5k0QlVtI/s1600/image012.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="283" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbm5HSWOpuW2qTUq2qiBFgWeAF2pnYoHQ78wl0SXEgMsOkv_MyYX_8T0uZxHWHzhSspHOP7g6qmpaBJoXbHwD5beLaTVcvc16jfevPZa9oCxHMRwEuNGIZ5GGhrBzmQZ2t1Dn5k0QlVtI/s400/image012.gif" width="400" /></a></div><br />
This shifts the peak down to about 58% from 65%.<br />
<br />
Of course, this compounds out to infinity. Assuming you keep a tax policy constant for a century, you get something like the following:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWDnmKm9s0VLQfjXp9ewQAxfKJgjT3mdQHMbaA2O7lsLVpQGIyKr7POB4FjGWCOVtFqX6FQDB7AFV-GZyyMZsjuGbV3n64wUedHpXZhEm75XovzNM669MBCEDyLnEfAArVSmETo3DOsEY/s1600/image014.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="283" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWDnmKm9s0VLQfjXp9ewQAxfKJgjT3mdQHMbaA2O7lsLVpQGIyKr7POB4FjGWCOVtFqX6FQDB7AFV-GZyyMZsjuGbV3n64wUedHpXZhEm75XovzNM669MBCEDyLnEfAArVSmETo3DOsEY/s400/image014.gif" width="400" /></a></div><br />
This brings the optimal tax rate down to 45%. In the long run, of course, "we'll all be dead". This analysis suggests that what we are really doing is taxing our grandchildren in order to pay for things today.<br />
<br />
<b>ANSWER: Martin Feldstein</b><br />
<br />
Martin Feldstein points out that before we reach the peak, we reach a point where marginal deadweight loss exceeds the marginal revenue.<br />
<br />
In other words, lets say we are 1% from the peak. If we increase taxes to reach the peak, we'll get $100-million additional revenue. On the other hand, the additional deadweight losses could be $1-billion.<br />
<br />
So I've graphed this (based on my Laffer #2 above, that peaks at 65%).<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiS8uQV5GmGGZ7AAD2I5MXgkpoZfBZflpuSm5JWxZbxoO3JdMI9xHKZoHcv4KbXxDwPR9Bx2jQwDWfzvOT2zopFGAvQj0hOe5K9Motf23yErQFk0XBLm7ggDlNKS2-02NSQhTTvIMPAeZw/s1600/image016.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiS8uQV5GmGGZ7AAD2I5MXgkpoZfBZflpuSm5JWxZbxoO3JdMI9xHKZoHcv4KbXxDwPR9Bx2jQwDWfzvOT2zopFGAvQj0hOe5K9Motf23yErQFk0XBLm7ggDlNKS2-02NSQhTTvIMPAeZw/s400/image016.gif" width="385" /></a></div><br />
Whereas this Laffer curve would peak at 65%, the point at which marginal deadweight losses start to exceed marginal revenue gains is at 48%. In other words, at this point, a $100-million increase in revenue will reduce GDP by more than $100-million.<br />
<br />
<b>CONCLUSION</b><br />
<br />
I can see the information better as graphs than equations. These graphs make gross and certainly inaccurate assumptions, so they can't be used for any real purpose (such as predicting the Laffer peak). Moreover, I've probably made some egregious mistake in equations, invalidating the guesswork even further.<br />
<br />
...and I'm not an economist, so have probably made obvious errors they can point out.Robert David Grahamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08823277317516618851noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3027053680210348378.post-31352455397188996272010-05-20T00:01:00.000-07:002011-04-07T15:18:27.949-07:00A Test of Honor: Everybody Draw Mohammed Day<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgaPN6qHMCKqKibOhd0xmidbajaYtvh8mK0T_aMsg3ZkZj2iJnvz6EqcyGkDsAPHW1l-E55s_mLu2G7AYH9ZcUU50M-r1bTzZEziIqOnqkU9AqBCGdQJEHW_gaP6mRE94Kj27RdikB7YE0/s1600/prophet-muhammad.png"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 283px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgaPN6qHMCKqKibOhd0xmidbajaYtvh8mK0T_aMsg3ZkZj2iJnvz6EqcyGkDsAPHW1l-E55s_mLu2G7AYH9ZcUU50M-r1bTzZEziIqOnqkU9AqBCGdQJEHW_gaP6mRE94Kj27RdikB7YE0/s320/prophet-muhammad.png" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5473237185298853778" /></a>Today is "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everybody_Draw_Mohammed_Day">Everyone Draw Muhammad</a>" <a href="http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/2010/05/what_is_everybody_draw_mohammed_day.html">day</a>, so here is my cartoon of the prophet Muhammad. It's banal, poorly drawn, and not very funny. The content isn't important -- what's important is that the cartoon exists.<br />
<br />
The "Everyone Draw Muhammad" day is the result of a controversy surrounding <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_park">South Park</a>'s</i> depiction of the prophet Muhammed. South Park is a TV show on cable network <i>Comedy Central</i>, and is some of the most interesting social commentary of our times. The creators got <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2010/apr/22/south-park-censored-fatwa-muhammad">death threats</a> for criticizing Islam and depicting Muhammad. The show was heavily censored by the television network, because the network was afraid of violent retribution.<br />
<br />
When I told my friends I was going support South Park, and draw a picture of the prophet Muhammed, they all reacted the same way. They were afraid for my safety. They couldn't understand why I would stick my neck out for a principle. After all, we are safely in America. There is no personal benefit to angering Muslims; nothing could be gained from this, there are only negative consequences.<br />
<br />
But it's a question of honor.<br />
<br />
When I was in college, I studied German history, especially the pre-war era and the rise of Nazism. I asked myself whether I would be one of the meek who would quietly submit to the mania of Nazism, or whether I would be one of the courageous and honorable people who vocally stood up against it saying "this is wrong!". The political issue is different today, but the question of honor is the same. Do you avoid confrontation with the bullies, the Nazi Brown Shirts and the Islamic extremists? Or do you risk confrontation to stand up for what you believe in?<br />
<br />
I can't respect myself unless I stand up for honor. I don't see a choice here.<br />
<br />
Neither did the creators of <i>South Park</i>. In <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxmCYKC25Sw&feature=related">this interview</a> Trey Parker and Matt Stone point out that it would be hypocritical to make fun of Catholics because "they won't hurt us", but not similarly rip on Islam. They point out that the cartoonists now live in hiding, precisely because the western media back off and censored themselves. If instead western media treated Islam like everything else, if all political cartoonists supported their peers, then it wouldn't have become such a big issue, and the cartoonists would be safe.<br />
<br />
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xxmCYKC25Sw&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xxmCYKC25Sw&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object><br />
<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_hirsi_ali">Ayaan Hirsi Ali</a> is a well-known critic of Islam. She escaped oppression in her own country (Somalia) and got asylum in the Netherlands. She rose to become a member of Dutch parliament. She made a film about the subjugation of women in Islamic culture. Her partner in the project, film director <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_(film_director)">Theo Van Gogh</a>, was murdered in retaliation. She has lived under government protection ever since. In a recent <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpmaT-CabsQ">interview</a> related to the South Park controversy, <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703465204575208163274783300.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion">she pointed out</a> that she would no longer need protection if everyone freely criticized Islam. She would be safe because there would be too many of us critics to kill.<br />
<br />
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MpmaT-CabsQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MpmaT-CabsQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object><br />
<br />
The conflict here isn't between Islam and Christianity, it's between a totalitarian ideology and modern civilization. In the secular west, nothing is above criticism, insult, or ridicule. In Islam, everything is subject to ideology. In the west, we teach our kids that "sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me". In Islam, even moderates are quick to take offense, such as in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy">Danish cartoons</a> controversy. (There, of course, exist a large number of civilized non-totalitarian Muslims, I just don't see them being in the majority or setting the national tone, such as in <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100519/ap_on_hi_te/as_pakistan_facebook">Pakistan's banning of Facebook</a> over this controversy).<br />
<br />
The proper response to such totalitarianism isn't appeasement, as is now common in our press. The proper response is vocal opposition and solidarity, so that the bravest of us do not have to stand alone.Robert David Grahamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08823277317516618851noreply@blogger.com9