This week's winners for Best Posts are up over at the Watcher's Site! Go and check them out for some good reading over the weekend. Here are the top winners:
BEST COUNCIL POSTS:
1. Iraqi Bravery Alpha Patriot (who just a few days ago was whining about how tough the competition was!)
And a 3-way tie for 2nd place!
2. About Last Night Little Red Blog
Science Fiction’s Dark Side Wallo World
Where Have All the Mothers Gone? Dr. Sanity
BEST NON-COUNCIL POSTS:
1. 2 Years Democracy in Iraq (Don't miss this one!)
2. More on the Babe Theory of Political Movements. WILLisms
Friday, March 25, 2005
Beyond Our Sun
This is exciting news:
What we need is a 5-year space mission to seek out new life and new civilizations; to boldly go where....wait! Haven't I heard this before?....... Oh dear, another Star Trek reference! I'm getting geekier as I get older.
This week, two teams working independently announced the first unambiguous detection of light from planets orbiting other sun-like stars. The achievements, researchers say, help set humanity on the doorstep of a golden age in exploring solar systems beyond our own.
Until now astronomers have detected their quarry through fleeting shadows or the subtle quiver of underbrush. They've had to rely on the faint dimming of a star as a planet swings in front of it or, more often, tiny wobbles that planets impart to their parent stars as they orbit. Although the technique the two teams used also is indirect, it finally reveals infrared light coming directly from the planets.
That light carries a wealth of information about the molecular composition of the planets' atmospheres. Armed with that information, scientists will pierce a critical barrier to uncovering the range of planetary environments that solar systems in our galaxy have to offer. The ultimate hope: finding Earth-like planets whose atmospheres carry the chemical signatures of life.
"These results are historic," enthuses Geoffrey Marcy, an astronomer at the University of California at Berkeley who heads one of the world's most prolific planet-hunting teams.
Over the past decade, and especially within the past few years, astronomers have been uncovering extrasolar planets at a furious pace. Dr. Marcy estimates that solid detections of planets orbiting other stars now number about 150. "We've discovered nearly all of the Jupiters and Saturns that exist around stars out to about 100 light years from Earth," he says. Many of them are so-called hot Jupiters - huge gas-giants orbiting very close to their parent stars.
What we need is a 5-year space mission to seek out new life and new civilizations; to boldly go where....wait! Haven't I heard this before?....... Oh dear, another Star Trek reference! I'm getting geekier as I get older.
Just Say "NO" to the UN
New Sisyphus takes on the UN again in this excellent post, "UN Reform: We Are All Terrorists Now".
You should read the whole piece. What's most interesting to me, of course, ist the psychology of all this. As you read the post, you realize--as New Sisyphus reminds us--how the entire UN document ( “In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights For All” “In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights For All” ) is cleverly written to appeal to the American Left. It discusses "Freedom from Want" and "Freedom from Fear" as universal goals, and seems to endorse the old socialist utopia idea:
The real kicker, as others have pointed out, is that we (meaning the citizens of the United States) are the ones who are going to pay for this international socialist dream! The engine of productivity in the world is to be chained for the "good" of all peoples. And we are expected to go willingly to the slaughter.
Ayn Rand called this process "the sanction of the victim". I think it is an apt description. The UN cannot force its will on the US without our moral permission to do so. Morality is the most powerful weapon that evil wields in the war against good. Socialist morality is the morality of self-sacrifice. The self-sacrifice moral code allows the worthless to make outrageous demands of those who produce, counting on the fact that the producers will feel morally obligated to satisfy them. It is the duty of the producers to satisfy the needs of all and to embrace his status, all the while accepting sneers, abuse, and condemnation.
Liberal guilt--expressed through the Left's continual and relentlessly virulent public anti-Americanism--serves a "psychological need to reconcile a leftist's own life of largesse, through either cost-free disdain for what produced it or (safe) sympathy for those who hated it."
The UN is counting on this guilt to get its way. They are still the same corrupt organization, led by the same corrupt leader who brought us the oil-for-food scandal; the numerous sex scandals; and who hide a thirst for power behind their stated desire to help mankind. Today they are desperate to maintain that power and prestige in the world even as they see it sinking to new lows as their real motives are exposed. Over and over again, the US does most of the work, pays most of the money; and Kofi and his pals take all the credit.
Sometimes when I listen to a patient's neverending complaints about their situation; about how they feel constrained to do things so obviously bad for them, I have this fantasy where I get up and start shaking them, yelling, "Stop! Stop! Stop being a victim! You don't have to do this! You can choose to say no!" It's a fairly satisfying fantasy. Perhaps this essay is a variant on it.
When we deal with the UN, we have to learn to just say NO.
Therein lies the danger of the U.N., of course. Once created, it took on a life of its own and, like institutions everywhere, it has sought ever since to expand its power as widely as possible. For reasons we have discussed earlier, the U.N. currently finds itself at a crosswords with one of its founding members and largest financial contributors. The simple plain fact is that a huge majority of Americans have no confidence in the U.N and view it as nothing more than an anti-American talking shop. What Annan’s report aims to accomplish is enough reform to reconcile American decision-makers to the institution while, at the same time, strengthening its independence as an autonomous body.
That is a tall order, and one that the Secretary General fails miserably at. In fact, as we will see below, the report is nothing more than yet another attempt to frame “international law” in such a way as to make American action in the world “illegal.” Finally, and most ominously, it also contains a mechanism to lower the U.S.’ power in the Security Council and a legal code that would brand most of America’s military actions of the past forty years nothing more than “terrorism.”
You should read the whole piece. What's most interesting to me, of course, ist the psychology of all this. As you read the post, you realize--as New Sisyphus reminds us--how the entire UN document ( “In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights For All” “In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights For All” ) is cleverly written to appeal to the American Left. It discusses "Freedom from Want" and "Freedom from Fear" as universal goals, and seems to endorse the old socialist utopia idea:
In an era of global abundance, our world has the resources to reduce dramatically the massive divides that persist between rich and poor, if only those resources can be unleashed in the service of all peoples.
The real kicker, as others have pointed out, is that we (meaning the citizens of the United States) are the ones who are going to pay for this international socialist dream! The engine of productivity in the world is to be chained for the "good" of all peoples. And we are expected to go willingly to the slaughter.
Ayn Rand called this process "the sanction of the victim". I think it is an apt description. The UN cannot force its will on the US without our moral permission to do so. Morality is the most powerful weapon that evil wields in the war against good. Socialist morality is the morality of self-sacrifice. The self-sacrifice moral code allows the worthless to make outrageous demands of those who produce, counting on the fact that the producers will feel morally obligated to satisfy them. It is the duty of the producers to satisfy the needs of all and to embrace his status, all the while accepting sneers, abuse, and condemnation.
Liberal guilt--expressed through the Left's continual and relentlessly virulent public anti-Americanism--serves a "psychological need to reconcile a leftist's own life of largesse, through either cost-free disdain for what produced it or (safe) sympathy for those who hated it."
The UN is counting on this guilt to get its way. They are still the same corrupt organization, led by the same corrupt leader who brought us the oil-for-food scandal; the numerous sex scandals; and who hide a thirst for power behind their stated desire to help mankind. Today they are desperate to maintain that power and prestige in the world even as they see it sinking to new lows as their real motives are exposed. Over and over again, the US does most of the work, pays most of the money; and Kofi and his pals take all the credit.
Sometimes when I listen to a patient's neverending complaints about their situation; about how they feel constrained to do things so obviously bad for them, I have this fantasy where I get up and start shaking them, yelling, "Stop! Stop! Stop being a victim! You don't have to do this! You can choose to say no!" It's a fairly satisfying fantasy. Perhaps this essay is a variant on it.
When we deal with the UN, we have to learn to just say NO.
Thursday, March 24, 2005
Carry On
From the "Everything I know, I learned from Star Trek" files I keep, this scene from the movie Star Trek, The Wrath of Khan seems to me to be appropriate today.
The exchange between Kirk and Saavik occurs while on a simulation training flight for cadets that has taken an unusual turn and has led to to seemingly disastrous and tragic consequences--even though Savaak and her cadets did everything "correctly". Captain Kirk ends the exercise and notices that Saavik is uncomfortable:
KIRK
Well, Mister Saavik, are you going to stay with the sinking ship?
SAAVIK
Permission to speak candidly, sir?
KIRK
Granted.
SAAVIK (fights emotion)
I don't believe this was a fair test of my command abilities.
KIRK
And why not?
SAAVIK
Because... there was no way to win.
KIRK
A no-win situation is a possibility every commander may face. Has that
never occurred to you?
SAAVIK
... No sir. It has not.
KIRK
How we deal with death is at least as important as how we deal with life, wouldn't you say?
SAAVIK(falters)
As I indicated, Admiral, that thought had not occurred to me.
KIRK
Well, now you have something new to think about. Carry on.
Yes. Exactly.
The exchange between Kirk and Saavik occurs while on a simulation training flight for cadets that has taken an unusual turn and has led to to seemingly disastrous and tragic consequences--even though Savaak and her cadets did everything "correctly". Captain Kirk ends the exercise and notices that Saavik is uncomfortable:
KIRK
Well, Mister Saavik, are you going to stay with the sinking ship?
SAAVIK
Permission to speak candidly, sir?
KIRK
Granted.
SAAVIK (fights emotion)
I don't believe this was a fair test of my command abilities.
KIRK
And why not?
SAAVIK
Because... there was no way to win.
KIRK
A no-win situation is a possibility every commander may face. Has that
never occurred to you?
SAAVIK
... No sir. It has not.
KIRK
How we deal with death is at least as important as how we deal with life, wouldn't you say?
SAAVIK(falters)
As I indicated, Admiral, that thought had not occurred to me.
KIRK
Well, now you have something new to think about. Carry on.
Yes. Exactly.
The Wonderful Complexity of Life
Now, this research is enormously important if it can be repeated:
I'm really not surprised that Life is so flexible. It seems to me that there are innumerable strategies that living things must have developed on a physiological level in order to survive throughout history. This research has discovered one such strategy and the implications are enormous--if the human genome inherited a similar potential. This discovery could open up ways to permanently "fix" genetic disorders.
Science is a process of discovery and then there is constant checking and evaluation of that discovery. This finding, if it is able to be replicated by other researchers, doesn't invalidate the Mendelian theory that has held for 150 years--it adds to to it; and to our understanding of the wonderful complexity of Life.
In the Purdue experiment, researchers found that a plant belonging to the mustard and watercress family sometimes corrects the genetic code it inherited from its flawed parents and grows normally like its unflawed grandparents and other ancestors.
Scientists said the discovery raises questions about whether humans also have the potential for avoiding genetic flaws or even repairing them, although the plant experiments did not directly address the possibility in higher organisms. They said the actual proteins responsible for making these fixes probably would be different in animals, if the capacity exists at all.
''This means that inheritance can happen more flexibly than we thought,'' said Robert Pruitt, the paper's senior author.
I'm really not surprised that Life is so flexible. It seems to me that there are innumerable strategies that living things must have developed on a physiological level in order to survive throughout history. This research has discovered one such strategy and the implications are enormous--if the human genome inherited a similar potential. This discovery could open up ways to permanently "fix" genetic disorders.
Science is a process of discovery and then there is constant checking and evaluation of that discovery. This finding, if it is able to be replicated by other researchers, doesn't invalidate the Mendelian theory that has held for 150 years--it adds to to it; and to our understanding of the wonderful complexity of Life.
GUILTY!
All right. Let me say it. I FEEL GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY because I have not been posting so much the last day or so. I HAVE NO EXCUSE! I am busier than usual with work, but the main reason is that the only thing going on in the last few days seems to be the Terri Schiavo situation and I don't have a lot more to say about that than I already said here.
The truth is that the Schiavo tragedy saddens me terribly and I don't feel like doing much. All my creative juices seem to have dried up for the moment. So, instead of fighting it, I'm just going to wait it out and let my soul rebound naturally.
I am working on a few essays off-line, but don't seem to be able to say exactly what I want to say quite yet. Nothing jumps up at me in the op-eds or news stories. I don't even want to comment on other blogs much.
So, if you are bored, you can go here to check out a few of my favorite past posts.
I'm gonna take two aspirins and blog in the morning. Or maybe the afternoon.
The truth is that the Schiavo tragedy saddens me terribly and I don't feel like doing much. All my creative juices seem to have dried up for the moment. So, instead of fighting it, I'm just going to wait it out and let my soul rebound naturally.
I am working on a few essays off-line, but don't seem to be able to say exactly what I want to say quite yet. Nothing jumps up at me in the op-eds or news stories. I don't even want to comment on other blogs much.
So, if you are bored, you can go here to check out a few of my favorite past posts.
I'm gonna take two aspirins and blog in the morning. Or maybe the afternoon.
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
Protests in Qatar
Here are some photos of a Demonstration against Terrorism in Qatar, where they recently had a suicide bomber in the Qatari capital, Doha, killing one Briton and injuring 12 people attending a theater performance. This was the first major terrorist attack in the country.
I suspect the demonstrations are an example of a type of "NIMBY" phenomenon (Not In My Backyard)--long overdue in this region. As the Islamofascist Terrorists get desperate and continue to attack other Muslims and innocents in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Qatar,Turkey, and other places around the world, we may begin to finally see a backlash against these thugs, instead of the steady diet of admiration and rationalization of their behavior by mainstream Muslims. Their Terrorist's tactics appear to be wearing thin and losing them supporters and this, combined with the obvious benefits of a new-found freedom may be the ultimate undoing of the jihadis.



(Photo hat tip: Free Thoughts)
I suspect the demonstrations are an example of a type of "NIMBY" phenomenon (Not In My Backyard)--long overdue in this region. As the Islamofascist Terrorists get desperate and continue to attack other Muslims and innocents in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Qatar,Turkey, and other places around the world, we may begin to finally see a backlash against these thugs, instead of the steady diet of admiration and rationalization of their behavior by mainstream Muslims. Their Terrorist's tactics appear to be wearing thin and losing them supporters and this, combined with the obvious benefits of a new-found freedom may be the ultimate undoing of the jihadis.
(Photo hat tip: Free Thoughts)
Like Grownups
From the Weekly Standard Scrapbook:
These days, if you don't want to make the transition from adolescent to adult, there's always academia!
UPDATE: I rest my case. (my daughter would respond, "Mom, you HAVE no case!" But, nevertheless I think this is illustrative of what I am talking about)
An international team of 250 scientists, conducting research first reported last Thursday in the British joural Nature, has completed a full map of the X or "female" chromosome which helps determine sex in human beings. The researchers found much greater genetic variation between the sexes than they had expected. All told, as the Los Angeles Times described the teams's conclusions, "men and women may differ by as much as 2 percent of their entire genetic inheritance, greater than the hereditary gap between humankind and its closes relative--the chimpanzee."Actually, you don't need scientists to devise an explanation for the Harvard faculty childishness. It's hard work to be a grownup! Maturity involves having to think, and not just feel.
Huntington Willard of Duke University, one of the key researchers participating in this latest effort, told the Chicago Tribune that by now "any of us over the age of two realizes taere are plenty of differences between males and females that are characteristic of the two sexes."
Alas, however, scientists have yet to discover an explanation for the inability of Harvard University faculty members to discuss this subject like grownups.
These days, if you don't want to make the transition from adolescent to adult, there's always academia!
UPDATE: I rest my case. (my daughter would respond, "Mom, you HAVE no case!" But, nevertheless I think this is illustrative of what I am talking about)
Man of La Qaeda
Beautiful Atrocities presents JIHAD: THE MUSICAL
ACT I - MADRASSA
OVERTURE
Mohammed, a Muslim youth, arrives at Ye Olde Madrassa, run by lecherous cleric Rashid, who raps about how Muslims will slaughter all infidels
RASHID: Jihad on the Dance Floor
At night, madrassa boys compare extremely limited knowledge of girls
MADRASSA BOYS CHORUS LINE: 72 Virgin Stomp
Mohammed receives letter from sister Nasreen, who wonders what life is like outside of burqa.
NASREEN: A Little Scratchy Under Here
Robert Fisk, masochistic lefty journalist, is beaten up by madrassa boys, to his delight
FISK: I've Been a Bad, Bad Boy
Rashid dreams of chain of bargain basement madrassas to continue youth outreach
RASHID: Just Let Me Get My Hands on You
MADRASSA BOYS WET DREAM SEQUENCE, featuring burqa-clad can-can chorus
Go check out Acts II and III! Somebody needs to go an produce this play--I think Mel Brooks could do it (Springtime for Bin Laden in Afganistan, anyone?).
ACT I - MADRASSA
OVERTURE
Mohammed, a Muslim youth, arrives at Ye Olde Madrassa, run by lecherous cleric Rashid, who raps about how Muslims will slaughter all infidels
RASHID: Jihad on the Dance Floor
At night, madrassa boys compare extremely limited knowledge of girls
MADRASSA BOYS CHORUS LINE: 72 Virgin Stomp
Mohammed receives letter from sister Nasreen, who wonders what life is like outside of burqa.
NASREEN: A Little Scratchy Under Here
Robert Fisk, masochistic lefty journalist, is beaten up by madrassa boys, to his delight
FISK: I've Been a Bad, Bad Boy
Rashid dreams of chain of bargain basement madrassas to continue youth outreach
RASHID: Just Let Me Get My Hands on You
MADRASSA BOYS WET DREAM SEQUENCE, featuring burqa-clad can-can chorus
Go check out Acts II and III! Somebody needs to go an produce this play--I think Mel Brooks could do it (Springtime for Bin Laden in Afganistan, anyone?).
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
Biological Fantasies
From a Cato Institute Policy Report:
The article goes on to discuss evolutionary psychology, which is a relatively new area of psychology that "seeks to understand the unique nature of the human mind by applying the logic and methods of contemporary evolutionary biology and cognitive psychology."
Somewhere between 50,000 and 10,000 years ago, during the Pleistocene era, when humans adapted from a "hunter-gatherer" to "agricultural" mode of living, the physiology and structure of the human brain--and hence, human psychology--was finalized by the concerted environmental and biological pressures on the human species during the previous 1.6 million years. In other words, modern human beings have the brain of their stone age ancestors. Our brains are not designed specifically for the "modern" world that we live in.
The article goes into some of the recent research of evolutionary psychologist, who are trying to understand exacly what "human nature" is all about. Basically, the results of their research shows that we are hard-wired--and therefore psychologically the same "hunter-gatherers" of 50,000 years ago. OUr social interactions are thus defined and limited by those ancient humans. Their findings are
- WE ARE COALITIONAL
We tend to form into groups of 25 - 150 most easily. Larger groups--where we do not have face-to-face contact with other members, are instinctively considered less trustworthy; and we tend to think often in terms of "us" versus "them". Having said that, when we develop social institutions that reinforce this built-in coalitional tendency (e.g., representative, democratic government) social tensions are relaxed and societies can thrive. OTOH, when political rhetoric encourages people to identify themselves as members of groups with no biological basis (e.g., "rich" versus "poor") tensions rise and animosity interferes with social stability. Free trade, or capitalism, encourages us to be wary of other groups, but also wo view them as partners in mutually beneficial trade; rahter than as "enemies".
-WE ARE HEIRARCHICAL
If you look around you will see evidence of this in every aspect of our life. Most social organizations have formal heirarchical structures (president, VP and the like). Even in area that aren't "formally" organized (e.g., high school or middle school) dominance and status issues are a primary concern of the students who vie with each other to be the most "cool". We so dislike being at the bottom of a heirarchy, that we naturally form coalitions that help to check the power of the dominant groups.
-WE ARE ZERO-SUM THINKERS
We have difficulty in thinking of resources or wealth as ever-expanding, and tend to think that their gain must be our loss. This leads to envy and all the associated social and political conflicts. And yet, the first two characteristics (coalition and heirarchy forming qualities) show that by working together and engaging in mutually beneficial trade and thereby increasing productivity, wealth can be created beyond what we think it can. But this tendency from hunter-gatherer days makes us have difficulty understanding our own economic system (especially if coalitions are formed which enhance the "us" versus "them" thinking).
-PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE NATURAL
In order to prevent the allocation of all resources to those at the top of heirarchies, the recognition of individual property rights has been part of our make up for thousands of years. Animals mark out territories for exclusive use in foraging, hunting, and mating--and so did our ancestors. This again is "hard-wired" into our species.
-MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL EXCHANGE IS NATURAL
Trade, exchange, and division of labor are human universals that existed long before complex societal structures.
-WE CAN NAVIGATE THE "US" vs."THEM" CONUNDRUM BY TRUST
We have a biological capacity for and need to trust others. This psychological trust enables us to solve otherwise unsolvable social problems--e.g., how to deal with strangers; outsiders; and other groups. Without this biological instinct to give other humans the benefit of the doubt, complex social interactions are impossible.
A recent article in the LA Times titled "The Anatomy of Give and Take" discusses some very recent research that tries to explain the economic interaction of humans, using high technology equipment such as MRI scanners. In one such experiment, two individuals are pitted against each other in an attempt to see which one could maximize their financial gain in the marketplace:
Matt Ridley, in his book The Origins of Virtue: Human Instincts and the Evolution of Cooperation tackles this issue head-on (and is well worth reading, I might add).
What all this information is leading to is the idea that human nature must be taken into account as we evaluate the usefulness and consequences of certain economic and political systems that are advocated in the world today. We are clearly well-suited to some things and not to others. There are some social, economic, and political systems that are like the Procrustean bed and try to adjust human nature to their theories. These almost always end in catastrophy, human misery, and death. There are some social, political and economic systems which encourage war, domination, and the accumulation of wealth by the top of the national heirarchy.
Many will say that it is capitalism that does these things, but they are incorrect, and all the evidence leans to the opposite conclusion. In fact, among social, political and economic systems, democratic capitalism is probably the one and only system that is MOST CONSISTENT WITH HUMAN NATURE.
Far from encouraging the "survival of the fittest", capitalism simultaneously encourages cooperation for mutually beneficial trade as well as competition. Far from encouraging war and dominance; capitalism encourages trust and human cooperation; as well as alliances to maximize productivity and wealth creation. Far from concentrating wealth in the hands of a few, capitalism makes it possible for anyone to accumulate wealth (contrast for example the number of people who earn over $100,000 a year in the U.S., with those do in Cuba. The only really wealthy person there is Fidel Castro and his cronies. Likewise, in Iraq, the only wealthy were Saddam and his thugs). Envy is a real human emotion, but only in a capitalist system can one transform one's envy into socially acceptable action to imporve one's own lot without attacking or destroying others.
Human nature is what it is. This is not tragic, it is simple truth. The biological fantasies of the Utopians; and the delusional fantasies of communists and socialists and all their heirs, have lead to incalculable levels of human suffering all over the globe, as the proponents of these theories have tried to force humans to some "ideal" state. All these systems have failed the real-world tests in the last century; and all current versions of these ideologies will also eventually fail and fade away. To the extent that they attempt to incorporate some aspects of "human nature" into their failing system, they may last a bit longer (e.g., China); but it is much more likely that human nature will transform the ideology than the reverse.
What we see in the Middle East today is the re-assertion of human nature after years of being crushed under the oppression of yet another social system that has attempted to rebuild humans along the lines of a religious "ideal", spiked with totalitarian fantasizing.
As with Kim Jung Il's theory of pine needle tea, how many deaths will it take before the social engineers of the New Procrustean Empire (following in the steps of the communists and socialists) abandon their attempts to force human beings to adapt to their fantasies?
The answer, my friend, is blowing in the winds of Freedom.
In the spring of 1845, Karl Marx wrote, ". . . the human essence is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of social relations." Marx's idea was that a change in the "ensemble of social relations" can change "the human essence."
In June 2004 the communist North Korean government issued a statement to its starving citizens recommending the consumption of pine needles. Pyongyang maintained that pine needle tea could effectively prevent and treat cancer, arteriosclerosis, diabetes, cerebral hemorrhage, and even turn grey hair to black.
Tragically, human nature isn't at all as advertised, and neither is pine needle tea. According to the U.S. State Department, at least one million North Koreans have died of famine since 1995.
Marx's theory of human nature, like Kim Jong Il's theory of pine needle tea, is a biological fantasy, and we have the corpses to prove it. Which may drive us to wonder: if communism is deadly because it is contrary to human nature, does that imply that capitalism, which is contrary to communism, is distinctively compatible with human nature?
The article goes on to discuss evolutionary psychology, which is a relatively new area of psychology that "seeks to understand the unique nature of the human mind by applying the logic and methods of contemporary evolutionary biology and cognitive psychology."
Somewhere between 50,000 and 10,000 years ago, during the Pleistocene era, when humans adapted from a "hunter-gatherer" to "agricultural" mode of living, the physiology and structure of the human brain--and hence, human psychology--was finalized by the concerted environmental and biological pressures on the human species during the previous 1.6 million years. In other words, modern human beings have the brain of their stone age ancestors. Our brains are not designed specifically for the "modern" world that we live in.
The article goes into some of the recent research of evolutionary psychologist, who are trying to understand exacly what "human nature" is all about. Basically, the results of their research shows that we are hard-wired--and therefore psychologically the same "hunter-gatherers" of 50,000 years ago. OUr social interactions are thus defined and limited by those ancient humans. Their findings are
- WE ARE COALITIONAL
We tend to form into groups of 25 - 150 most easily. Larger groups--where we do not have face-to-face contact with other members, are instinctively considered less trustworthy; and we tend to think often in terms of "us" versus "them". Having said that, when we develop social institutions that reinforce this built-in coalitional tendency (e.g., representative, democratic government) social tensions are relaxed and societies can thrive. OTOH, when political rhetoric encourages people to identify themselves as members of groups with no biological basis (e.g., "rich" versus "poor") tensions rise and animosity interferes with social stability. Free trade, or capitalism, encourages us to be wary of other groups, but also wo view them as partners in mutually beneficial trade; rahter than as "enemies".
-WE ARE HEIRARCHICAL
If you look around you will see evidence of this in every aspect of our life. Most social organizations have formal heirarchical structures (president, VP and the like). Even in area that aren't "formally" organized (e.g., high school or middle school) dominance and status issues are a primary concern of the students who vie with each other to be the most "cool". We so dislike being at the bottom of a heirarchy, that we naturally form coalitions that help to check the power of the dominant groups.
-WE ARE ZERO-SUM THINKERS
We have difficulty in thinking of resources or wealth as ever-expanding, and tend to think that their gain must be our loss. This leads to envy and all the associated social and political conflicts. And yet, the first two characteristics (coalition and heirarchy forming qualities) show that by working together and engaging in mutually beneficial trade and thereby increasing productivity, wealth can be created beyond what we think it can. But this tendency from hunter-gatherer days makes us have difficulty understanding our own economic system (especially if coalitions are formed which enhance the "us" versus "them" thinking).
-PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE NATURAL
In order to prevent the allocation of all resources to those at the top of heirarchies, the recognition of individual property rights has been part of our make up for thousands of years. Animals mark out territories for exclusive use in foraging, hunting, and mating--and so did our ancestors. This again is "hard-wired" into our species.
-MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL EXCHANGE IS NATURAL
Trade, exchange, and division of labor are human universals that existed long before complex societal structures.
-WE CAN NAVIGATE THE "US" vs."THEM" CONUNDRUM BY TRUST
We have a biological capacity for and need to trust others. This psychological trust enables us to solve otherwise unsolvable social problems--e.g., how to deal with strangers; outsiders; and other groups. Without this biological instinct to give other humans the benefit of the doubt, complex social interactions are impossible.
A recent article in the LA Times titled "The Anatomy of Give and Take" discusses some very recent research that tries to explain the economic interaction of humans, using high technology equipment such as MRI scanners. In one such experiment, two individuals are pitted against each other in an attempt to see which one could maximize their financial gain in the marketplace:
As the pair wavered between cooperation and betrayal, scientists recorded how their brains changed. The researchers hoped to discover the secret of trust — the human variable missing from the mathematics of modern economics.This is the new field of "neuroeconomics", trying to figure out why people trust each other, when economic theory says they won't. Yet the field of evolutionary psychology has evidence that such trust is built-into our brains, and it is what makes such economic activities as "trade" and "production" possible.
The terms of the experiment were simple: At the beginning of each round, Belur could put up to $20 in play. Any investment automatically tripled. Tang then decided how much to return and how much to keep.
Belur's safest strategy was to hoard all of her money. Tang's most logical move was to cheat her partner at every opportunity.
There was a riskier but potentially more profitable way.
They could trust each other.
The experiment was part of a new frontier in the exploration of the brain — a field called neuro- economics that seeks to understand the biology underlying economic behavior.
In universities and research centers across the country, scientists are probing the brain with coin flips, $5 bills and gift certificates from Amazon.com. Bit by bit, they are assembling a mosaic of the financial brain, identifying how competing neural circuits shape decisions.
Matt Ridley, in his book The Origins of Virtue: Human Instincts and the Evolution of Cooperation tackles this issue head-on (and is well worth reading, I might add).
What all this information is leading to is the idea that human nature must be taken into account as we evaluate the usefulness and consequences of certain economic and political systems that are advocated in the world today. We are clearly well-suited to some things and not to others. There are some social, economic, and political systems that are like the Procrustean bed and try to adjust human nature to their theories. These almost always end in catastrophy, human misery, and death. There are some social, political and economic systems which encourage war, domination, and the accumulation of wealth by the top of the national heirarchy.
Many will say that it is capitalism that does these things, but they are incorrect, and all the evidence leans to the opposite conclusion. In fact, among social, political and economic systems, democratic capitalism is probably the one and only system that is MOST CONSISTENT WITH HUMAN NATURE.
Far from encouraging the "survival of the fittest", capitalism simultaneously encourages cooperation for mutually beneficial trade as well as competition. Far from encouraging war and dominance; capitalism encourages trust and human cooperation; as well as alliances to maximize productivity and wealth creation. Far from concentrating wealth in the hands of a few, capitalism makes it possible for anyone to accumulate wealth (contrast for example the number of people who earn over $100,000 a year in the U.S., with those do in Cuba. The only really wealthy person there is Fidel Castro and his cronies. Likewise, in Iraq, the only wealthy were Saddam and his thugs). Envy is a real human emotion, but only in a capitalist system can one transform one's envy into socially acceptable action to imporve one's own lot without attacking or destroying others.
Human nature is what it is. This is not tragic, it is simple truth. The biological fantasies of the Utopians; and the delusional fantasies of communists and socialists and all their heirs, have lead to incalculable levels of human suffering all over the globe, as the proponents of these theories have tried to force humans to some "ideal" state. All these systems have failed the real-world tests in the last century; and all current versions of these ideologies will also eventually fail and fade away. To the extent that they attempt to incorporate some aspects of "human nature" into their failing system, they may last a bit longer (e.g., China); but it is much more likely that human nature will transform the ideology than the reverse.
What we see in the Middle East today is the re-assertion of human nature after years of being crushed under the oppression of yet another social system that has attempted to rebuild humans along the lines of a religious "ideal", spiked with totalitarian fantasizing.
As with Kim Jung Il's theory of pine needle tea, how many deaths will it take before the social engineers of the New Procrustean Empire (following in the steps of the communists and socialists) abandon their attempts to force human beings to adapt to their fantasies?
The answer, my friend, is blowing in the winds of Freedom.
Long Live The King!
GM's Corner (The Place Where Truth, Honesty and Integrity Are Honored Above All Else!) won last week and has been crowned "King of the Blogs!". He is now in the running against two other excellent blogs and needs your help to retain his crown.
So head on over to the King of the Blogs website and vote for him. Long Live The King!
So head on over to the King of the Blogs website and vote for him. Long Live The King!
Monday, March 21, 2005
Good News From the Arab Street
Arthur Chrenkoff has a roundup of good news from the Islamic world--a special "Pro-Democracy edition. He starts out:
And here's a sample of good news from Egypt:
Today it was reported that there was heavy unrest in Kyrgyzstan . Interestingly, that country's most famous son, Salizhan Sharipov, is now in space aboard the International Space Station (he is a Russian citizen and a cosmonaut). Sharipov is an ethnic Uzbek, from an Uzbek village that is within the borders of Kyrghizia. (hat tip: Jim O)
So perhaps it is unfair to suggest that being "far out in space" is an excuse for the behavior of the new anti-Freedom movement (which is the same as the old "anti-U.S." movement). The Arab "street" has figured out which way the wind is blowing.
Only the clueless Left seems to be in need of a weather man.
While throughout major cities of Western world crowds - albeit much diminished since three or two years ago - have turned up over the weekend for anti-democracy rallies to protest the second anniversary of the start of the liberation of Iraq, one region of the world remained strangely unaffected by the "anti-war" and "anti-occupation" fervor: the notorious "Arab street" has failed to join the "European street" and the "American street" in condemning yet again Chimpy Bushhitler and his imperialist policies. The only significant exception throughout the Middle East was Turkey, where rallies in three major cities could only muster several hundred people between them.
Everywhere else, the second anniversary of invasion did not incite much public excitement - possibly because the local residents were too busy rallying against terrorism and theocracy, and for freedom, democracy and human rights.
And here's a sample of good news from Egypt:
EGYPT:It is beyond me why anyone would demonstrate against the encouraging events that are taking place today in a part of the world that has been under the boot of dictatorship for decades and decades. You would have to be pretty far out in space to not understand the incredible yearning for Freedom that is sweeping the world.
Since early December, Cairo has witnessed a series of anti-government demonstrations demanding free and democratic election that would not result in an automatic re-election of President Mubarak to his fifth consecutive term in office. "The rallies, organised by the Egyptian Movement for Change, have coined a slogan 'kefaya' (enough) -- to vent their exasperation with Mubarak and his consecutive administrations."A few days ago, Egyptian opposition activist Ayman Nour declared to the cheering crowd of about 1,000 supporters that he will stand against Hosni Mubarak in the presidential election later this year. Said Nour: "They [the ruling party] have to apologise for the false elections during the past miserable 50 years... We have never chosen a president before ... Change is coming one day, and that day is soon."On the second anniversary of the Coalition entry into Iraq, some 300 protesters have gathered in the capital to rally against the occupation. By all accounts, large sections of the crowd have spent most of the time venting their anger at their own government, sporting "No to Mubarak" stickers on their foreheads and chanting the opposition slogan "Enough!"
Today it was reported that there was heavy unrest in Kyrgyzstan . Interestingly, that country's most famous son, Salizhan Sharipov, is now in space aboard the International Space Station (he is a Russian citizen and a cosmonaut). Sharipov is an ethnic Uzbek, from an Uzbek village that is within the borders of Kyrghizia. (hat tip: Jim O)
So perhaps it is unfair to suggest that being "far out in space" is an excuse for the behavior of the new anti-Freedom movement (which is the same as the old "anti-U.S." movement). The Arab "street" has figured out which way the wind is blowing.
Only the clueless Left seems to be in need of a weather man.
Incredible Space Photos
Here is a great site if you enjoy absolutely fantastic space pictures:
Astronomy Picture of the Day
Each day a different image or photograph of the universe is featured, along with a brief explanation written by a professional astronomer.
Astronomy Picture of the Day
Each day a different image or photograph of the universe is featured, along with a brief explanation written by a professional astronomer.
The Value of One Life
Several readers have asked me why I haven't commented on the Terri Schiavo case, and have asked for my thoughts. I do not feel that I am able to comment in any detail, since I personally have experience with some of the intense emotions that are swirling on both sides of this issue.
I feel sorry for the parents of Terry Schiavo; I feel sorry for the husband; and most of all, I feel sorry for Terri. I know what I would do in this situation, but I cannot speak for the people who are actually living it.
ShrinkWrapped, a psychoanalyst's blog has a very articulate post up on Narcissism and Empathy which makes some excellent points about the case.
Certainly, the entire tragedy has become a three-ring circus; and I suspect that many things have become lost in the transition from tragedy to media comedy. I don't presume to know Terri Schiavo's wishes; and I don't presume to know Michael Schiavo's motivations. If there must be an error made in this case, then as a human being and a physician, I hope the error is made on the side of Life. Doctors don't always know what they are talking about; Love can be expressed in many ways; and Life, well, determining Life or Death is an exceedingly compelx matter that cannot be reduced to a simplistic battle of slogans and labels.
Oh, and one more thing. I found this comment by a reader of The Corner to be very perceptive:
UPDATE: 3/23- as the case progresses to its terminal phase, I think Charles Krauthammer's op-ed piece today is well worth reading.
I feel sorry for the parents of Terry Schiavo; I feel sorry for the husband; and most of all, I feel sorry for Terri. I know what I would do in this situation, but I cannot speak for the people who are actually living it.
ShrinkWrapped, a psychoanalyst's blog has a very articulate post up on Narcissism and Empathy which makes some excellent points about the case.
Certainly, the entire tragedy has become a three-ring circus; and I suspect that many things have become lost in the transition from tragedy to media comedy. I don't presume to know Terri Schiavo's wishes; and I don't presume to know Michael Schiavo's motivations. If there must be an error made in this case, then as a human being and a physician, I hope the error is made on the side of Life. Doctors don't always know what they are talking about; Love can be expressed in many ways; and Life, well, determining Life or Death is an exceedingly compelx matter that cannot be reduced to a simplistic battle of slogans and labels.
Oh, and one more thing. I found this comment by a reader of The Corner to be very perceptive:
No, I am not a right to lifer. I am a pro choice absolutist. Moreover, my daughter is so sick of hearing me tell her I do not want any extraordinary measures to prolong my life that she promised to throw me down the stairs if things go wrong.The one thing we can know for sure whatever the outcome of this terrible situation, is that we are fortunate to live in a society deeply invested in the value of one individual human life. As long as the meaning of one life or one death can generate such intense emotional debate and passion, then our nation remains vibrant and committed to the basic principles on which it was founded.
And yet, I find the specter of the most powerful people in the only superpower drop everything to focus on the destiny of a single badly disabled woman edifying.
This is democracy and this is progress. If you do not believe me just compare it to legalized honor killings in Jordan, Pakistani tribal customs which consider gang rape of a woman a just verdict or the enslavement of girls to repay debts in Ghana. In fact, the valiant efforts to end those practices once and for all are the best indicators of democratic progress.
We have come a long way baby and for that we should be truly grateful.
UPDATE: 3/23- as the case progresses to its terminal phase, I think Charles Krauthammer's op-ed piece today is well worth reading.
Life in Academia - Who Are We To Judge Saddam Hussein?
I came across this article by Fred Siegel in the NY Observer, just surfing around today. It discusses the Radical Professors in today's academia. Here is just a small part (read the entire piece!):
The transformation of our "intellectual" centers of knowledge into vast emotional swamps of multicultural victimhood, offended by any idea that they don't like, can be best appreciated by the fact that in this last election, academia contributed little or nothing in the way of usable ideas--though it was a major source of Democratic Party funding. In fact, one might arguably equate the almost complete lack of ideas (except for the repetitive mouthing of the words, "I have a plan") and the knee-jerk opposition to any Republican idea just because it was Republican-- as one of the most significant factors in the decisive defeat of the Democratic Party.
You see, like the radical professors discussed in this article, no longer are the Democrats bothered by pesky ideas, which might actually have to be defended by reason and logic. No, they rely almost totally these days on the primacy of their feelings, which they proudly point out need no defense, since they are honest feelings. Howard Dean's recent comment that the Republicans are brain-dead; and Senator Byrd's equation of Republicans with Nazis are a perfect examples of the emotional nothingness the current Democratic Party has to offer.
Don't like bringing Democracy to the Middle East - NO BLOOD FOR OIL!
Don't like Bush's policies? BUSH IS HITLER!
Don't like this or that? NO NO NO NO!
From their perspective, they can readily identify with poor Saddam, who was just another helpless victim of U.S. imperialism.
Having had no new ideas since the Vietnam era, is it so surprising that they eagerly recycle those old slogans that were popular from that era? They meant little then, and less now; but are symbolic of a time in history when the Left felt it was winning. But they stopped thinking too soon.
Having lost the Cold War, they now intend to dress up their socialist/communist agenda in a new set of anti-U.S., anti-Israel; anti-Freedom; anti-Democracy; anti-Capitalism clothing. But even after 20 or more years, the emperor is still naked. Genocide is tolerated if it comes from their side of the political spectrum. Moral equivalence is applied to situations that demand moral judgement. Freedom of speech is touted, unless they don't like what you say. I could go on, but I haven't the inclination to waste so much of my time documenting what has already been documented everywhere.
And running through it all, like a river of denial and projection, is a vast, pervasive cluelessness. A lack of insight or self-awareness so incredible and so blindingly transparent that it is almost awe-inspiring in its magnitude. This kind of mindless emoting in lock- step on the part of large numbers of the "intellectual elite" is a Totalitarian's dream! The slogans and banners are the stuff of dictator's fantasies. For these professors and their minions, the mindset of Orwell's 1984 is a deliberate lifestyle choice.
These are our new intellectuals. Is it any wonder that a fraud like Ward Churchill is their poster boy? And that tyrants like Saddam and Fidel are their cause celebre? Vive la revolucion!
Back in the fall of 2003, when Dr. Dean was still riding high in the Presidential primary, I’d listened in on a conversation among undergraduate Deaniacs outside my office at Cooper Union in the East Village. "This just doesn’t feel like America any more," one of them said to a friend, who replied, "Fuck Bush," and pointed to a button on his jacket bearing the same slogan.While radical professors, disguised as "academics", ponder questions like, "Who are we to judge Saddam Hussein?"; and as political activism--rather than the pursuit of knowledge-- became their main activity; it transpired that policymakers had to look elsewhere for a source of ideas. The academic's role was thus taken over by think tanks, which...well, think., as opposed to just emoting and spewing slogans.
It’s an old professor’s habit, but I had to engage them. "What does that mean?" I asked the fellow with the button. "Bush is bullshit," he replied, "the most evil man in the world." When I said that wasn’t an argument and pressed him, he acknowledged that "Saddam isn’t a good guy," but "who are we"—he pointed both to me and his like-minded friend—to "judge Saddam Hussein?"
"Why not?" I asked. He replied with an answer right out of the postmodern playbook. Americans can’t judge another culture, he insisted, because there is no common morality. But if that’s the case, I asked, why then was George Bush "undoubtedly the most evil man in the world?" He seemed puzzled by the idea that his version of an emotional truth might seem incoherent to others.
Like the fascist writers of the 1930’s from whom their postmodern teachers had drawn their ideas, these Deaniacs were both engaged in politics and deeply cynical about democracy, which they saw as a game manipulated by nefarious forces led by Fox News. As they see it, there is little to argue; the only question is "which side are you on?" Doubtful that informed debate could settle much, they hoped to impose their will on a backward country that wickedly refused to see the appeal of a "Fuck Bush" platform.
I was taken aback by my conversation with the Deaniacs; their sheer coarseness stunned me. Even at the height of the "Ronald Reagan is going to blow up the world" mania of the 1980’s, I had never seen a "Fuck Reagan" button. But the coarseness was consistent with the dominant mood in academia outside of the sciences.
Recently, the professoriat has been embarrassed by a series of dustups exposing the irrationalist underside of academic life. After Hamilton College invited a former Brinks holdup terrorist to take a faculty position, it compounded its problems by asking "Indian" poseur Ward Churchill of the University of Colorado to speak, only to back off when he was found to have delivered a rant about how the people killed in the World Trade Center were "little Eichmanns." Columbia’s alumni, if not its administration, has been discomfited by the ravings of Joseph Massad, a professor so extreme in his support of Palestinian terrorism as to have labeled Yasir Arafat a collaborator with Israel. Harvard president Larry Summers has been forced to don the sackcloth and ashes after he commented reasonably that the differences between men and women might—and his stress, the transcript shows, was on might—be one part of the reason why there are fewer females in the sciences.
The transformation of our "intellectual" centers of knowledge into vast emotional swamps of multicultural victimhood, offended by any idea that they don't like, can be best appreciated by the fact that in this last election, academia contributed little or nothing in the way of usable ideas--though it was a major source of Democratic Party funding. In fact, one might arguably equate the almost complete lack of ideas (except for the repetitive mouthing of the words, "I have a plan") and the knee-jerk opposition to any Republican idea just because it was Republican-- as one of the most significant factors in the decisive defeat of the Democratic Party.
You see, like the radical professors discussed in this article, no longer are the Democrats bothered by pesky ideas, which might actually have to be defended by reason and logic. No, they rely almost totally these days on the primacy of their feelings, which they proudly point out need no defense, since they are honest feelings. Howard Dean's recent comment that the Republicans are brain-dead; and Senator Byrd's equation of Republicans with Nazis are a perfect examples of the emotional nothingness the current Democratic Party has to offer.
Don't like bringing Democracy to the Middle East - NO BLOOD FOR OIL!
Don't like Bush's policies? BUSH IS HITLER!
Don't like this or that? NO NO NO NO!
From their perspective, they can readily identify with poor Saddam, who was just another helpless victim of U.S. imperialism.
Having had no new ideas since the Vietnam era, is it so surprising that they eagerly recycle those old slogans that were popular from that era? They meant little then, and less now; but are symbolic of a time in history when the Left felt it was winning. But they stopped thinking too soon.
Having lost the Cold War, they now intend to dress up their socialist/communist agenda in a new set of anti-U.S., anti-Israel; anti-Freedom; anti-Democracy; anti-Capitalism clothing. But even after 20 or more years, the emperor is still naked. Genocide is tolerated if it comes from their side of the political spectrum. Moral equivalence is applied to situations that demand moral judgement. Freedom of speech is touted, unless they don't like what you say. I could go on, but I haven't the inclination to waste so much of my time documenting what has already been documented everywhere.
And running through it all, like a river of denial and projection, is a vast, pervasive cluelessness. A lack of insight or self-awareness so incredible and so blindingly transparent that it is almost awe-inspiring in its magnitude. This kind of mindless emoting in lock- step on the part of large numbers of the "intellectual elite" is a Totalitarian's dream! The slogans and banners are the stuff of dictator's fantasies. For these professors and their minions, the mindset of Orwell's 1984 is a deliberate lifestyle choice.
These are our new intellectuals. Is it any wonder that a fraud like Ward Churchill is their poster boy? And that tyrants like Saddam and Fidel are their cause celebre? Vive la revolucion!
Sunday, March 20, 2005
The Thing With Feathers
This is truly inspiring, from an Iraqi on the 2nd anniversay of the Iraq war. He answers the question, "Was it worth it?" I urge you to read the entire post from his blog, Democracy in Iraq (hat tip: TFS Magnum):
"Hope" is the thing with feathers-- That perches in the soul-- And sings the tune without the words-- And never stops--at all-- -Emily Dickenson
Everything that is done in the world is done by hope. -Martin Luther King
Hope is a waking dream. -Aristotle
We should not let our fears hold us back from pursuing our hopes. -John F. Kennedy
He who does not hope to win has already lost. -Jose' Joaquin Olmedo
How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed in a weary world. -Shakespeare
Now I answer you, I answer you on behalf of myself, and my countrymen. I dont care what your news tells you, what your television and newspapers say, this is how we feel. Despite all that has happened. Despite all the hurt, the pain, blood, sweat and tears. These two years have given us hope we never had.
Before March 20, 2003, we were in a dungeon. We did not see the light. Saddam Hussain was crushing Iraq's spirit slowly, we longed for his end, but knew we could not challenge him, or his diabolical seed who would no doubt follow him and continue his generation of hell on Earth.
Since then, we now have hope. Hope is not a tangible thing, but it is something, it is more than being blinded by darkness, by being stuck in a mental pit without any future.
Hope has been the greatest product of the last two years. No doubt, many have died, many have died by accident or due to crimes. But their sacrifices are not, and will not be for nothing. I refuse to let it be, and my countrymen stand with me.
Our cities are smoking, our graveyards full, and terrorists in our midst. But we are not defeated. We are not down, we are not regretful. We are not going to surrender. For all that the two years have brought, the greatest thign they have given us is a future, and a view of the finish line.
"Hope" is the thing with feathers-- That perches in the soul-- And sings the tune without the words-- And never stops--at all-- -Emily Dickenson
Everything that is done in the world is done by hope. -Martin Luther King
Hope is a waking dream. -Aristotle
We should not let our fears hold us back from pursuing our hopes. -John F. Kennedy
He who does not hope to win has already lost. -Jose' Joaquin Olmedo
How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed in a weary world. -Shakespeare
Weekly Insanity Update
Welcome to the weekly roundup of the insane, the ridiculous, the unbelievable and the obnoxious. Why don't we just call it the "Carnival of the Insanities"? If you would like to get linked next week, just send me a post you've written that is either insane or talks about some insane, ridiculous piece of news and I guarantee I'll include it!
1. Better late than never. Sort of like closing the barn door after....you know.
2. The mind boggles. Incredibly creepy image.
3. This sort of thing wouldn't be allowed to be discussed at Harvard. The faculty would be in an uproar!
4. Just a matter of time before the Congressional hearings.
5. A true man of the people...Yeah. Right.
6. The original Liberty Babe!
7. I thought it was an invitation to boredom...who knew?
8. BEWARE! This is what happens when you take steroids!
9. "In order to tarnish the image of Islam"? We needn't bother.
10. Right-left and the scrotum in Greek sculpture? Isn't academia wonderful?
11. Yet another psychiatric syndrome that afflicts the Left.
12. Obesity will solve social security. Two problems taken care of!
13. You know what? I think Krugman's jealous because he didn't get asked!
14. Many guys think this would take all the fun out of the game.
UPDATE: Here are the result of the [extremely unscientific, completely biased] Poll:
HARVARD FACULTY POLL
Do you have any confidence in the judgement of the Harvard Faculty?
NO
(176)99%
YES
(2)1%
Total Voters : 178
1. Better late than never. Sort of like closing the barn door after....you know.
2. The mind boggles. Incredibly creepy image.
3. This sort of thing wouldn't be allowed to be discussed at Harvard. The faculty would be in an uproar!
4. Just a matter of time before the Congressional hearings.
5. A true man of the people...Yeah. Right.
6. The original Liberty Babe!
7. I thought it was an invitation to boredom...who knew?
8. BEWARE! This is what happens when you take steroids!
9. "In order to tarnish the image of Islam"? We needn't bother.
10. Right-left and the scrotum in Greek sculpture? Isn't academia wonderful?
11. Yet another psychiatric syndrome that afflicts the Left.
12. Obesity will solve social security. Two problems taken care of!
13. You know what? I think Krugman's jealous because he didn't get asked!
14. Many guys think this would take all the fun out of the game.
UPDATE: Here are the result of the [extremely unscientific, completely biased] Poll:
HARVARD FACULTY POLL
Do you have any confidence in the judgement of the Harvard Faculty?
NO
(176)99%
YES
(2)1%
Total Voters : 178
Unrelenting Spin, Unrelenting Bias
Cori Dauber over at Rantingprofs performs an invaluable service. Every day she reads thoroughly through the NY Times, Washington Post and other media newspapers and discusses her findings in her blog. She is an Associate Professor of Communication Studies (and of Peace, War, and Defense) at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Today in one of her posts "At Least they Covered It" she shows just how biased the Times is for about the millionth time:
If you want to check out some of the other in-depth analyses of how the media covering the war, how about this one? Or this? Every day, with few exceptions, multiple instances of how the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan is being distorted; spun and mischaracterized by the mainstream news. The good news is buried (or not mentioned at all); the bad it trumpeted over and over. There is a complete lack of understanding about military matters generally; and specifically an incredible disinterest in familiarization with the way the military works (you might think this would be important--particularly if you intend to criticize the military on a regular basis. It would be nice if you knew what you were talking about). Occasionally, an outlet produces something reasonably balanced, but not often enough for anyone to trust what they say; or to mitigate the overall impression one gets that they want you to think that everything is a disaster and utterly hopeless.
I would question such paranoid feelings...except..except that on a daily basis, I see the same stories that give evidence to the unrelenting spin and unrelenting bias of the mainstream media. I'm just glad Cori reads them all and documents them, so I don't have to anymore.
Today in one of her posts "At Least they Covered It" she shows just how biased the Times is for about the millionth time:
I can't help mentioning that this is on the front page. Or that this is on the front page.Today was the 2nd anniversary of the start of the Iraq war. You would think this story would merit front page coverage. Clearly it is far too positive for the front page. I guess we should just be grateful, as Cori suggests, that they bothered to print it at all.
Yet the article, "Insurgency Loses Ground, Top Marine In Iraq Says," is stuffed inside the paper on page A-5. (The online edition has the slightly different headline, "Insurgency Is Fading Fast, Top Marine in Iraq Says,")
But the lead paragraph is the same in both editions:
The top Marine officer in Iraq said Friday that the number of attacks against American troops in Sunni-dominated western Iraq and death tolls had dropped sharply over the last four months, a development that he called evidence that the insurgency was weakening in one of the most violent areas of the country. (My emph.)
Notice the phrasing there, by the way -- a development he called evidence. And what, prey tell, would the reporter consider evidence that the insurgency was weakening? That is the great mystery of press coverage of this war. What stable metric can the military count on as evidence that they're doing real damage to the enemy and things are improving, at least on the security side?
If you want to check out some of the other in-depth analyses of how the media covering the war, how about this one? Or this? Every day, with few exceptions, multiple instances of how the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan is being distorted; spun and mischaracterized by the mainstream news. The good news is buried (or not mentioned at all); the bad it trumpeted over and over. There is a complete lack of understanding about military matters generally; and specifically an incredible disinterest in familiarization with the way the military works (you might think this would be important--particularly if you intend to criticize the military on a regular basis. It would be nice if you knew what you were talking about). Occasionally, an outlet produces something reasonably balanced, but not often enough for anyone to trust what they say; or to mitigate the overall impression one gets that they want you to think that everything is a disaster and utterly hopeless.
I would question such paranoid feelings...except..except that on a daily basis, I see the same stories that give evidence to the unrelenting spin and unrelenting bias of the mainstream media. I'm just glad Cori reads them all and documents them, so I don't have to anymore.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

