Okay, so my 'All Israel, All The Time' day turned into 'Israel Once, Work The Rest Of The Time.' So, quickly, my thoughts on the good, the bad, and the ugly about Israel, vis-a-vis the Palestinian question.
First off, the good. Israel remains the only real ally that the U.S. has in the region, the only country where both the government and the populace is pro-American. Many of the governments in the Middle East are at least nominally pro-American, but we are finding out in Iraq that, if the populace is given a say, the government they put in power tends to not be so conducive to the ideals that we like to think are necessary for a free, modernized, democracy.
Israel, on the other hand, in the face of repeated, and as mentioned earlier, truly existential threats, has remained a free and open democracy for nearly 60 years now.
It is certainly worth mentioning that those Arabs who are Israeli citizens have full rights, more rights than Arabs in any other country in the Middle East possess.
Strategically, for the US, Israel has also been a helpful ally at times. In hockey, when the opponent's goon is out making trouble, you don't send out your best player to pick a fight. You send out your goon, the idea being that you keep your most talented players in the game. For a long time, Israel has been our goon in the Middle East, bombing the Osirak facilities in Iraq and conducting other operations on our behalf (if not openly so). This may or may not be a moral good, but it has certainly been to the strategic advantage of the US not to have to get so directly involved.
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Zionists And Warplanes And Nukes, Oh My!
In honor of today's 40th anniversary of the start of the 6-Days War, today is going to be all-Israel, all the time. Just consider me part of the vast Zionist conspiracy.
First up, the must-watch (or must-listen) event is Bob Wright's interview with Gershom Gorenberg on bloggingheads.tv. Another fine piece of telejournalism by Bob, who has done a wonderful job of bringing some extremely fine minds into bh.tv for some interesting and insightful pieces.
Gershom does a wonderful job of outlining the early history of Israel, and the military buildup that led to the 6-Days War. It's worth remembering that, when we were attacked on 9/11, 3000 people died, about 0.0001% of the country's population. From that, we have been sold into the fact that we are facing an existential threat, which is to say that there is a reason to believe that Muslim radicals could possibly manage to kill 1,000,000% more people than they did on 9/11.
Israel, on the other hand, was surrounded on 3 sides by hostile armies, and the only reason it wasn't 4 is because the Arabs didn't have an army of water-walking messiahs with which to attack from the south. It wasn't just the proverbial rock and the hard place, it was more like being stuck between a rock, a hard place, Donald Trump's hair and Roseanne Barr singing 'The Star Spangled Banner.'
The point is, Israel's mere survival of this period is pretty amazing. This is not to excuse all the things that Israel has done wrong since then, or that they continue to do, of which there are legion. But it is to say that America may have overreacted an eensy-weensy bit after one very bad day, so surely we can have a little sympathy to the plight of a small country, living in a pretty hostile land, surrounded on all sides by people sworn to their destruction, and understand why the Israelis can seem a bit cantankerous at times.
First up, the must-watch (or must-listen) event is Bob Wright's interview with Gershom Gorenberg on bloggingheads.tv. Another fine piece of telejournalism by Bob, who has done a wonderful job of bringing some extremely fine minds into bh.tv for some interesting and insightful pieces.
Gershom does a wonderful job of outlining the early history of Israel, and the military buildup that led to the 6-Days War. It's worth remembering that, when we were attacked on 9/11, 3000 people died, about 0.0001% of the country's population. From that, we have been sold into the fact that we are facing an existential threat, which is to say that there is a reason to believe that Muslim radicals could possibly manage to kill 1,000,000% more people than they did on 9/11.
Israel, on the other hand, was surrounded on 3 sides by hostile armies, and the only reason it wasn't 4 is because the Arabs didn't have an army of water-walking messiahs with which to attack from the south. It wasn't just the proverbial rock and the hard place, it was more like being stuck between a rock, a hard place, Donald Trump's hair and Roseanne Barr singing 'The Star Spangled Banner.'
The point is, Israel's mere survival of this period is pretty amazing. This is not to excuse all the things that Israel has done wrong since then, or that they continue to do, of which there are legion. But it is to say that America may have overreacted an eensy-weensy bit after one very bad day, so surely we can have a little sympathy to the plight of a small country, living in a pretty hostile land, surrounded on all sides by people sworn to their destruction, and understand why the Israelis can seem a bit cantankerous at times.
Monday, June 4, 2007
It's a small world after all...
Reader LT, who I've known for all of, oh, 8 days now, writes in comments about a marriage she recently attended between a Contractor and a Bonfanti. That, of course, would be Nikki Contractor and Paul Bonfanti, who were my captains the second season I played PADA Summer League in Philadelphia.
Some might be surprised that someone I just met at a wedding 8 days ago would be very close friends with two people I've known for about 10 years. But, since I know that I am actually the only person who exists, and the rest of you are just very fancy simulations in the computer program that is running my brain, I'm not even a little bit surprised.
Some might be surprised that someone I just met at a wedding 8 days ago would be very close friends with two people I've known for about 10 years. But, since I know that I am actually the only person who exists, and the rest of you are just very fancy simulations in the computer program that is running my brain, I'm not even a little bit surprised.
Motorcycle Helmets Make Baby Jesus Cry
I took a very informative advanced motorcycling skills class on Saturday. Good stuff. But during the introductory talk, the instructor told us about ABATE of Colorado, the group who put on the class. Most of it sounded good; protecting the rights of motorcycle riders to health insurance, things like that. Sounded like the kind of group I could contribute to. Then he mentioned that they managed to submarine a law in Colorado which was seeking to mandate that motorcycle riders under the age of 18 wear a helmet. If he had me at 'health insurance', he lost me at 'undermining helmet laws.'
At heart, I certainly have a bit of a libertarian streak, and I don't like governmental overregulation. But actively working to allow people to do stupid things which have bad consequences for the rest of the population, well, that's just bad policy.
The problem here is that, by not wearing your helmet or your seat belt, you are increasing your risk for injury. When you are injured, your health insurance, or your car insurance, pays for the hospital bills. That money doesn't magically appear; it is collected from you, and everyone else who carries insurance with this company, in the form of insurance premiums. So, when you collect massive medical bills as a result of not wearing a seat belt, everyone pays the costs for your poor decision-making.
My proposal is this: allow people to not wear helmets when they ride a motorcycle. Allow them not to wear a seat belt when they're driving a car. But if they are injured in a crash in any way which could have been prevented or ameliorated by the safety equipment they chose to forgo, then their health insurance is not required to pay for it. If you go entirely bankrupt paying for your medical bills, at that point the insurance company, maybe with some governmental assistance, will step in and foot the bill, but not until that point.
It's a solution conservatives should love; more freedom, more responsibility, less governmental oversight. And it's something liberals should love, since they don't own motorcycles, and always wear seat belts in their Priuses.
At heart, I certainly have a bit of a libertarian streak, and I don't like governmental overregulation. But actively working to allow people to do stupid things which have bad consequences for the rest of the population, well, that's just bad policy.
The problem here is that, by not wearing your helmet or your seat belt, you are increasing your risk for injury. When you are injured, your health insurance, or your car insurance, pays for the hospital bills. That money doesn't magically appear; it is collected from you, and everyone else who carries insurance with this company, in the form of insurance premiums. So, when you collect massive medical bills as a result of not wearing a seat belt, everyone pays the costs for your poor decision-making.
My proposal is this: allow people to not wear helmets when they ride a motorcycle. Allow them not to wear a seat belt when they're driving a car. But if they are injured in a crash in any way which could have been prevented or ameliorated by the safety equipment they chose to forgo, then their health insurance is not required to pay for it. If you go entirely bankrupt paying for your medical bills, at that point the insurance company, maybe with some governmental assistance, will step in and foot the bill, but not until that point.
It's a solution conservatives should love; more freedom, more responsibility, less governmental oversight. And it's something liberals should love, since they don't own motorcycles, and always wear seat belts in their Priuses.
James Dobson Hates Women
As Kevin Drum points out over at The Washington Monthly, this nugget from James Dobson spokesman Tom Minnery is exposing and disgusting:
Look, I am pretty middle-of-the-road on abortion. I don't like the idea of killing fetuses, and make no mistake about it, that is what an abortion does. But life is full of decisions, and we do things we'd rather not do all the time. I believe the rights of a fully-grown person have to override those of an unformed fetus contained inside her body. I think we can all agree that we'd like to have less abortions, if only because they are surgical procedures, which means they have risks, and we'd like to reduce those for everyone.
But this just makes me ill. Dobson is admitting to being a proponent of exposing women to higher risk of injury; that is, physically hurting women, in order to reduce the already miniscule numbers of people undergoing a grotesque, but sometimes necessary, medical procedure? It's bad enough (well past bad enough) for Anthony Kennedy to claim that this ban is necessary to prevent women from suffering guilt later for the decisions they made, but this is insulting, patronizing and, well, evil.
Doctors adopted the late-term procedure "out of convenience," Minnery added. "The old procedure, which is still legal, involves using forceps to pull the baby apart in utero, which means there is greater legal liability and danger of internal bleeding from a perforated uterus. So we firmly believe there will be fewer later-term abortions as a result of this ruling."So, basically, Dobson supports forcing doctors who feel that a late-term abortion is medically appropriate into using a procedure which is more dangerous for the woman involved. If some more of them are injured or killed in the process, well, they were probably Democrats anyway, so no big loss.
Look, I am pretty middle-of-the-road on abortion. I don't like the idea of killing fetuses, and make no mistake about it, that is what an abortion does. But life is full of decisions, and we do things we'd rather not do all the time. I believe the rights of a fully-grown person have to override those of an unformed fetus contained inside her body. I think we can all agree that we'd like to have less abortions, if only because they are surgical procedures, which means they have risks, and we'd like to reduce those for everyone.
But this just makes me ill. Dobson is admitting to being a proponent of exposing women to higher risk of injury; that is, physically hurting women, in order to reduce the already miniscule numbers of people undergoing a grotesque, but sometimes necessary, medical procedure? It's bad enough (well past bad enough) for Anthony Kennedy to claim that this ban is necessary to prevent women from suffering guilt later for the decisions they made, but this is insulting, patronizing and, well, evil.
Worst. Punctuation. Ever.
Watching a bit of the French Open yesterday. Apparently, there is this kid from Switzerland named Roger Federer, who is a pretty good tennis player. Kids these days, just coming out of nowhere. Who knew? Although it's very cute how he gives his opponent a little chocolate bar after each match, then blows him kisses.
Anyhow, I noticed that The Artist Formerly Known As Justine Henin-Hardenne was now being referred to as Justine Henin. A little searching revealed that earlier this year she announced that she was going to be seeking a divorce from her husband, Pierre-Yves Hardenne, and competing with her maiden name, Henin. Which is fine.
But this whole convention of hyphenating, I have to say, strikes me as possibly the worst single consequence of the overly politically correct reaction-against-the-patriarchy movement in the last 30 years.
For the record, I am completely in favor of husbands and wives taking on the same name when they get married. In my opinion, it is an important signal of their intention of being their own unit, independent and yet forever linked together. I agree wholeheartedly that the historical precedent that the wife takes the man's name, "just because that's always how it's been done," is unnecessary. And yes, it has historical referents to the fact that the wife was once considered the man's property, and that's why she took his name, which gives it extra negative logic.
But hyphenating names is just no solution at all. For one thing, you can end up with completely ridiculous concatenations that sound funny, don't fit on the signature line of a check, and reduce the productivity of the average American worker by 4 seconds per day for each time they have to say your full name. For another, what happens when your kid, John Singletary-Rosenfels, meets the love of his life, the amazing and wonderful Sally Reinhardt-Mcgonagal, on www.loveforpeoplewithtoomanylastnames.com? I swear to god, if they name their first child Amberleigh Singletary-Reinhardt-Rosenfels-Mcgonagal, they should be put to death, and the child sent to the salt mines.
So eventually, someone is going to have to make the decision to throw away one or more last names. Hyphenating is just a total copout failure to do so for yourself when you get married.
For the record, my opinion is that the happy couple should adopt whichever of their original last names sounds the most mellifluous with their respective first names. And if this means that certain truly horrible last names, like Kucinich (sorry, Dennis!), simply fade into oblivion after time, well, that's just another bonus of the system.
If they can't come to an agreement on which name sounds better, then make up a new one. I'm sure that my wife, the future Mrs. Superman, will agree: sometimes, just starting over is the right thing to do!
Anyhow, I noticed that The Artist Formerly Known As Justine Henin-Hardenne was now being referred to as Justine Henin. A little searching revealed that earlier this year she announced that she was going to be seeking a divorce from her husband, Pierre-Yves Hardenne, and competing with her maiden name, Henin. Which is fine.
But this whole convention of hyphenating, I have to say, strikes me as possibly the worst single consequence of the overly politically correct reaction-against-the-patriarchy movement in the last 30 years.
For the record, I am completely in favor of husbands and wives taking on the same name when they get married. In my opinion, it is an important signal of their intention of being their own unit, independent and yet forever linked together. I agree wholeheartedly that the historical precedent that the wife takes the man's name, "just because that's always how it's been done," is unnecessary. And yes, it has historical referents to the fact that the wife was once considered the man's property, and that's why she took his name, which gives it extra negative logic.
But hyphenating names is just no solution at all. For one thing, you can end up with completely ridiculous concatenations that sound funny, don't fit on the signature line of a check, and reduce the productivity of the average American worker by 4 seconds per day for each time they have to say your full name. For another, what happens when your kid, John Singletary-Rosenfels, meets the love of his life, the amazing and wonderful Sally Reinhardt-Mcgonagal, on www.loveforpeoplewithtoomanylastnames.com? I swear to god, if they name their first child Amberleigh Singletary-Reinhardt-Rosenfels-Mcgonagal, they should be put to death, and the child sent to the salt mines.
So eventually, someone is going to have to make the decision to throw away one or more last names. Hyphenating is just a total copout failure to do so for yourself when you get married.
For the record, my opinion is that the happy couple should adopt whichever of their original last names sounds the most mellifluous with their respective first names. And if this means that certain truly horrible last names, like Kucinich (sorry, Dennis!), simply fade into oblivion after time, well, that's just another bonus of the system.
If they can't come to an agreement on which name sounds better, then make up a new one. I'm sure that my wife, the future Mrs. Superman, will agree: sometimes, just starting over is the right thing to do!
What I'm Reading
I just finished The End of Oil, which is a slightly-depressing, if extremely well-written, book examining the possibility of the end of the hydrocarbon era, and what the future may hold. It's a good book if you're interested in energy economy types of questions, including some very optimistic suggestions as to how the power grid may develop to enable functional usage of renewable energy sources (especially the concept of microgrids, using efficient generation of hydrogen via electrolysis as a very efficient battery, to be released during periods of low sun, wind, etc.)
Now I am clunking my way through Brian Greene's The Fabric of the Cosmos, which is a physics-for-interested-laymen walkthrough of 20th century particle physics and cosmology, written by one of the pre-eminent minds in the field. Here is a good, critical review of it in Slate.
I have long had lots of problems with modern cosmological physics. In particular, the fact that the edifice on which the biggest thoughts rest, the M Theory variant of String Theory, is entirely unscientific. What I mean by this is that, given our current technological level of development, it is not possible to experimentally verify any of string theory's predictions (for much more on this idea, see Gregg Easterbrook's excellent review of another book here)
Then, I see today's article about a potential discovery of the Higgs boson at the Tevatron today in Slate. One would think that the field of particle physicists would be thrilled about the potential discovery of the particle whose existence would fill out the Standard Model of Cosmology, and even fit the properties predicted by the theory. But no:
-Predict a result
-Design an experiment to test it
-Build and execute the experiment
-Measure and analyze the data
-Adjust your theory
-Come up with a new prediction
-Repeat
It is literally not science if you are trying to disprove something, not to prove something. You have to know what you are looking for before you go looking.
To say nothing of the fact that we are spending billions upon billions of dollars (okay, Euros) in order to hopefully find-what? Something, but not actually what we're looking for?
You know I am a science geek. And a big one. I'm completely in favor of way out-there studies, and looking for answers to questions that we're not even totally equipped to ask yet. But it does seem to me to be, just maybe, possible that we could find slightly more useful ways of spending out money, in ways that would be a bit more helpful to people, than this.
Now I am clunking my way through Brian Greene's The Fabric of the Cosmos, which is a physics-for-interested-laymen walkthrough of 20th century particle physics and cosmology, written by one of the pre-eminent minds in the field. Here is a good, critical review of it in Slate.
I have long had lots of problems with modern cosmological physics. In particular, the fact that the edifice on which the biggest thoughts rest, the M Theory variant of String Theory, is entirely unscientific. What I mean by this is that, given our current technological level of development, it is not possible to experimentally verify any of string theory's predictions (for much more on this idea, see Gregg Easterbrook's excellent review of another book here)
Then, I see today's article about a potential discovery of the Higgs boson at the Tevatron today in Slate. One would think that the field of particle physicists would be thrilled about the potential discovery of the particle whose existence would fill out the Standard Model of Cosmology, and even fit the properties predicted by the theory. But no:
That's why particle physicists, and the EU member states that have spent Nepal's annual GDP to build this accelerator, are hoping that no one, in Chicago or Switzerland, finds the Higgs. The future of high-energy physics lies with the small chance that the standard model is wrong, and something exotic happens at LHC energies.This is, not to put too fine a point on it, insane. It makes no sense to design an experiment to prove your predictions wrong. The essence of the scientific method is to
-Predict a result
-Design an experiment to test it
-Build and execute the experiment
-Measure and analyze the data
-Adjust your theory
-Come up with a new prediction
-Repeat
It is literally not science if you are trying to disprove something, not to prove something. You have to know what you are looking for before you go looking.
To say nothing of the fact that we are spending billions upon billions of dollars (okay, Euros) in order to hopefully find-what? Something, but not actually what we're looking for?
You know I am a science geek. And a big one. I'm completely in favor of way out-there studies, and looking for answers to questions that we're not even totally equipped to ask yet. But it does seem to me to be, just maybe, possible that we could find slightly more useful ways of spending out money, in ways that would be a bit more helpful to people, than this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)