Friday, July 30, 2004

To believe in Hell, ...

I noticed a report from Reuter in the local paper the other day. It said that there was a positive correlation between a populatioon's "belief in hell" and the honesty of said population. Now, correlations of avowed beliefs and behavior are pesky things. I have noticed for instance that measures of human society have a marked tendency to find that ten percent of the population is (fill in the blank). It seems almost every possible percievable difference in people contains at least one subset of humanity that amounts to 10% of the whole. I find all this suspicious.
And I think many, perhaps most, people who claim high moral character also have some caveats. "I'm considerate and respectful of other people." - Unless I don't like them. "I always do my best at work." - Unless I'm not feeling good. "I don't lie, cheat, or steal." - Unless I'm sure no one is looking.
One might imagine that there is something about what, or how, the social scientists choose to measure things.
In this particular case, an outfit calling itself "Transparency International" determined that people who belive in hell have a lower "corruptionn rate" (?), and that this somehow corresponds to a higher GDP for the society or country in question.
My personal feeling about this is that people who have more, have more to lose, and tend not to pursue criminal activites as blatantly as those who have nothing to lose. This, I think, is why lower unemployment rates correspond so well with lower crime rates. Police Chiefs and Governors disagree, claiming that it is their bold anti-crime initiatives that make the difference, but the evidence is mostly on my side. So there!
Seems to me, it's mostly a matter of who is measuring these things. I don't know who exactly Transparency International is, but given their results, I have reason to doubt their methodology. What are they looking at to determine rate of corruption? Example: Thailand (indeed, all Southeast Asia)is sometimes thought of as a fairly corrupt society. Lots of bribery, kickbacks, and the like. Still, there are some in America who have single-handedly swindled more people out of more money than all the criminals (both blue and white collar) in Thailand put together.
Murder, rape, assault, robbery; these are common blue-collar crimes in America. Embezzlement, false tax filings, perjurious legal claims; these are common
white-collar crimes in America.
Perhaps "Transparency International" doesn't consider these practices to be corrupt. Maybe because the perpetrators "believe in hell", they get a free pass?

Thursday, July 29, 2004

Totally Botched!

Due to the president's attention deficit disordered foreign policy, Afghanistan has now achieved the distinction of being in a worse state than it was when run by the Taliban. Given their (the Taliban's)ignorant, luddite (actually, pre-luddite might be appropriate), and retrograde governance, this is no mean feat. To be fair, there is a patina of increased freedom in the country. However, since the freedom often involves being killed by unrestrained terrorist or "militia" groups, it is of little value to most people. Things have become so bad that Medesins San Frontieres, which has managed to remain active in Afghanistan throughout the war with the Soviet Union and the reign of the Taliban, has been forced to leave the country; the opium trade is now so robust (remember when Rush Limbaugh praised the Taliban for their effort to end the cultivation of Poppies?) that Afghani heroin has largely priced the traditional Golden Triangle out of the heroin business. Fortunately for the people of that regionn, it has been easy to switch to factory production of methamphetamines, which are enjoying a boom in sales in South East Asia...
To return to the original topic, President Bush, feeling he wasn't getting enough column inches in the major newspapers, decided he was "Mission Accomplished" in Afghanistan, and turned his attention to Iraq. Actually, I suppose, he always intended Iraq as his major objective. Having little-to-no ability to see consequences, he overthrew the government of Iraq, which proved not so very hard to do, militarily inconsequential as they were, and then decided that Iraq, too, was a "Mission Accomplished". I truly believe that to this day he doesn't understand that simply ousting Saddam Hussein doesn't fix anything. Post-Saddam, there is an entire country (yes, we know; The Size of California), filled with Real People, that requires resources, governance, the full panoply of societal infrastructure that the president ignorantly believes occurs by default. His neo-cons, being more evolved, believed (I think) that with the Iraqis throwing flowers, and with Halliburton pumping oil, everything would work out. Infrastructure to the laissez-faire capitalist means banking, and nothing else.
So now, with Afghanistan in stasis, and Iraq approaching that state, what do we do next?
The choice is clear: New Tax Cuts, or New President.

Wednesday, July 28, 2004

It's Convention Time!

The Dem's convention is going on this week. Naturally, commentators are commentating like crazy. For years now, one of the favorite themes of commentators of a certain type is the motivational psychology of William Jefferson Clinton. It has become an article of faith with them that he is unable to utter any statement, no matter how simple, without parsing and reparsing it, calculating several levels of interpretation, and examining his utterance for potential personal image enhancement. They deconstuct his every sentence and claim to see only ego, never substance. For people like these, the appearance of his book atop the best seller list must be causing a severe acid reflux reflex.
In the last week or so I've seen a lot of "analyses" of the effect on the assembled Democratic Party's mental health of the convention speech of the ex-president. Apparently, he must be articulate, but not too articulate. And interesting, but not too interesting. And, of course, there is the appearance of candidate-in-waiting Hilary Rodham Clinton. She also must be energizing and riveting, but not too much so. Her book, sitting next to husband Bill's at number two, must also be galling to the commentators of the right. I'm delighted, even though I can't afford either book. I confess to doing a lot of shopping at the remainder tables of bookstores, where I do not have the opportunity to buy a Clinton book, but where I can always pick up a copy of Rush Limbaugh, should I so desire. The relative salability of these books gives me great hope that the size of the army of enraged radio talk show caller-inners, and their influence, is a lot smaller than one is inclined to believe from their loudness. Perhaps, like my tendency to write numerous letters-to-editors, the callers are not as much numerous as persistent. A few hundred determined malcontents endlessly calling into talk shows can create a large impression. Just as a few letter-writers (such as myself) can. This is a good thing, even if I find those particular malcontents irritating (which I admit is the case only because they do not agree with me).

Thursday, July 22, 2004

I guess I was wrong...

Okay, I give up. According to a report whose provenance I have misplaced, 20% (that's 1 in 5) of the people in the United States who have received spam email (that is to say, 20% of all Americans)... have made purchases via spam "opportunities". Incredible! No wonder those spammers aren't withering on the vine. I guess I was wrong when I claimed that spammers were people without redeeming qualities. If they add value to that many lives, then I think we need to reevaluate our efforts to curb them. If one in five decides as a result of those emails that there is something they need to purchase that they didn't know about before, we'd better not stifle those entrepreneurs of merchandising. Or, spammers.
I admit to being a little miffed though, when I put a block on, e.g. viagra, only to find email offering me an amazing opportunity to purchase v1agra, or perhaps vi@gra, or some like catenation of similar symbols. I don't really think that someone who receives such a solicitation is very likely to suddenly say: "OH, MY! I certainly would like to get some of that! I'm so happy they got past my filter!" But then, there is that 20%. That's about the same percentage of Americas that vote! So, therefore, I am going to stop railing against these pioneers of marketing, and be silent about their evil ways.
I still think those who click on spam should have their hard drive reformatted, though.

Tuesday, July 20, 2004

Encouraging terrorists

The Phillipine military has left Iraq in a body. Totally abandoned the "Coalition of the Willing". Left a major gap in the flank of the occupation troops. All fifty one soldiers. Only good thing about it, it was pretty easy from a logistical sense. Spain, Nicaragua, P.I. One is inclined to ask just how willing some of these coalition partners really were. Given that most of them have a few hundred troops at most, and those forbidden to engage in actual combat, I have a vague notion that these partners are going along with the United States desire for some window dressing in hope of gaining some present or future favors from Uncle Sam. Or, seeing how vindictive the current administration can be, perhaps these partners are simply hoping to avoid an unpleasant payback.
Now the Phillipine government is certainly coming in for a lot of criticism for their departure. The U. S. State Department (among others) says that if you do what the terrorists want, you'll only encourage more terrorist acts. I guess somebody must have been doing quite a lot in the last year or so to encourage them, since there is more terrorism going on than you can shake a stick at lately. Perhaps dropping bombs on people doesn't make friends so much as piss them off. That's what the Iraqis keep saying anyway. The Palestinians say that too. And they certainly do seem to have an unlimited supply of terrorists in their midst.
I would claim there is a connection, but the president, who claims he has more intelligence than me, says that's not so. It's all that evil going around out there that's to blame.
I'll stick to my theory.

Taking flight

It looks as though I'm going to have to take a little trip soon. That means getting on an airplane. The actual flying (in the plane) is easy. It's that getting on part that's difficult. Last time I flew, we spent a pretty considerable part of the allotted flight time sitting at the gate. With apologies, but no explanation. Eventually, several people were taken off. No, not the Muslims sitting in the middle seats; the Buddhists sitting on the right side. Following their departure, there was considerable cleaning and disinfecting of the area. Apparently we are being protected from bird flu, as well as terrorists. They had already siezed my WMD (aka nail clippers) at the gate, so I was cleared to fly.
All this is by way of leading up to the big competition at this weeks air show in London. There are lots of nifty attack planes being demoed, sure, but the real money is in the contracts gleaned by major commercial aircraft competitors Boeing and Airbus. Or, rather, they would be competitors if they didn't need each other so much. Without Airbus, Boeing wouldn't be able to justify asking for special tax treatment and government subsidies to "help us compete". Similarly, Airbus can cite the specter of Boeing to seek help from various government organizations in Europe.
The big faceoff this year is between the new Boeing 7E7 "Dreamliner" and the Airbus A380 "Superjumbo". Or perhaps it's "Gargantua".
In this one, I think I'm going with Boeing.
Considering my most recent experience, mentioned above, I'm not at all certain that a Superjumbo, which is supposed to carry 550 or more people, can actually find enough travellers who can pass muster with the security folk to get away from the gate. I'm afraid the A380 is destined to spend more time at the terminal than in the air, waiting for clearance. Meanwhile, Boeing serendipitously decided to make the Dreamliner fuel efficient, like the VW Beetle, only sleeker. Considering the cost of a barrel of oil, that might be one of the great guesses of the century. Of course, it may be that the seekers after nail clippers, etc., will find more efficient ways to root out potential terrorists, and the Gargantua will be able to take to the skies in a reasonable time.
We'll see.
Meantime, I prefer to walk, wherever it's feasible.

Tuesday, July 13, 2004

At the XV Annual Conference

This morning, as most mornings, I again passed by the dying AIDs victim lying in the grass by the statue at the park entrance. I can't tell if it's a man or a woman. A woman, I think, but it's hard to tell. All I can see is some sticklike limbs curled around a shapeless body. She/he lies there in a fetal position most of the day; I see her/him there sometimes when I pass by on the way home from work, too.
At the same time, across town, the XV International HIV/AIDs Conference is taking place. Its motto "Access for All" probably doesn't apply to the dying person in the park; with an admission fee of a thousand dollars, I suspect the conference is financially out of reach of this person, who I doubt has a thousand of anything. The conference attendees tend toward the clean, neat, well-fed and well cared for. People with resources. Still, the conference is bound to have some positive results. Solutions will meet problems. People will learn things. Some people will become more aware of some facts. There are of course demonstrators, who shout "hypocrisy" at the attendees, angry that the plague doesn't seem to be taken seriously enough. And, certainly, there are politicians and the famous-and-beautiful who come to events like this to get their pictures taken. Hypocritical it may be, but perhaps there is an appropriate quid pro quo here. The politician gets mention in the news, and so does the conference. And so does the disease. So,in the end, the HIV/AIDs plague gains in importance in the public consciousness.
I think though, that some will manage to avoid learning anything from this conference. They (typically the most demonstratively pious) will remain adamant that the only solution to the AIDs plague is - no sex. If you persist in being sinful, you must be punished, I guess; with pregnancy, with disease, with death perhaps. While not uniquely true only of the Catholic Church, Rome does manage to maintain a certain Pride of Place. In a recent document issued by Cardinal Trujillo, who is president of the Pontifical Council for the Family, it is claimed that the use of condoms provides a false sense of safety, and is likely to increase sexual activity, thus increasing the rate of transmission of HIV. He has included some references to tests of condoms, in which he completely misstates the conclusions reached by the testing scientists. Tests of condoms, as well as comparing HIV infection rates with condoms use, show quite clearly that their use reduces infection rates tremendously. Given the unbending animosity of the church to condoms and other pregnancy prevention devices, though, one suspects that this is a self-serving attempt to manipulate the less-than-well-informed. And a deliberate ignoring of the procreation imperative that impels sexual activity.
In the insistence on abstinence only, a teaching of not only the church in Rome, but also of the current United States administration and its fellow travellers among the more conservative protestant church leaders, we see that there are others besides me who sometimes espouse ideas that fall into the category of "Good Idea; Too Bad It's Wrong."

Thursday, July 08, 2004

The Runningmate

Well, I see that John Kerry has finally stopped playing Hamlet, and has selected a running mate. Senator Edwards was probably his best choice, since none of the others (the Republican excepted) has a lot of national recognition. Sen. Edwards, when he was running for the presidential nomination, was usually described as "an attractive candidate". I think this was generally a slighting reference to his appearance. Much like saying that Dan Quayle was an attractive candidate. I did hear Edwards doing a lot of interviews last fall, pretty much anywhere they'd have him. I thought he did pretty well. Rather than the usual litany of "I'm the best man for the job, my opponent is lame-o, vote for me!", he actually presented thoughts and ideas regarding the economy, education, social infrastructure, and the war. It sounded as though he had done some studying. No wonder he didn't make the cut.
When push comes to shove, most voters vote their emotion, rather than their mind. We'd all like to think that we consider the issues, then make a rational decision based on reasoned self interest. Actually, we mostly just vote for the guy we'd most like to lead us on the upcoming mammoth hunt. That's why modern campaigns look more like a jousting tournament than a debate. It's all a matter of which knight has the bigger lance.
Now, George Bush has been proud to show off the size of his lance, employing it all over the world, even in such out of the way places as the 'stans. In response, John Kerry has been forced to show old Vietnam War footage that shows the size of his lance. It's not certain, but I think maybe there's a statute of limitations on old lances. Or maybe it was when Kerry disavowed his military activities when he became, well, a militant. Anyway, it looks like a close election, one in which we can expect to see, or hear, a lot of high-decibel talk about whose lance is bigger.
Personally, I'd like to hear them talking about how to make the country better, but then I guess I'm just old-fashioned. Or naive.

Friday, July 02, 2004

The Trial of the Century...

It seems there are a lot of trial-of-the-centurys these days. I can recall a few from the last century. My personal favorite would have to be the Scopes Trial. It seems to have been about a really strange law. Something you'd only fine in Tennessee, likely. Then there was the trial of the football player. A truly dreary affair that only served to aggravate the suspicion that the rich get tried, the poor go to jail.
So I saw Saddam Hussein on the teevee last night. I think he looked a little bit like George Carlin. Apologies to George if he is offended. Perhaps there's a new career in this for him. A Saddam impersonator.
Anyway, I saw Saddam on teevee last night, where an Iraqi court is getting ready to try him for an assortment of crimes. Nobody is certain what crimes to charge him with. I think being a brutal thug dictator would be an appropriate charge. But there's a problem in all this: I'm not sure if it's possible for a dictator to break his own laws. Still, I guess Iraq is going to pass some new laws. If they do this, maybe they can just pass a law making it illegal to be a former Iraqi dictator, and let it go at that. I don't know if it's still true, but it used to be in the United States, it was unconstitutional to make a law and then arrest someone for breaking the law before it was a law. It's called ex post facto, I think because lawyers like to make everything clear for the rest of us.
Well, it might turn out to have been a better idea to send Saddam to an international court, where they already have laws against being a brutal thug dictator (see Slobodan Milosevich, e.g.). There are those who don't like that idea, though, because they are afraid that the court will find Saddam guilty of invading a foreign country. If we find out that's illegal, it might reflect poorly on President Bush. Actually, there are a few United States Presidents who could have a problem with this. So, to avoid this difficulty, the United States has decided not to believe that international courts have any authority. But that an Iraqi court does.
I am really looking forward to the "open, fair trial" of Saddam Hussein, but I don't expect to see it before November.