Posts

Posts matching the query string: Tag=War.

My ratings (R) are from 1 to 9. My Dates are also permalinks. Click on the column headers to sort Jots. Feel free to use the address bar like a command line interface by setting the optional query string parameters: Dtm1 (10, 20, 30, YYYYMMDDhhmmss), Dtm2 (YYYYMMDDhhmmss), IsJot (Jot or Not), Tag (zero+ times), NotTag (zero+ times), OrderBy (PostForDate, PostTitle, PostLink, PostText, PostSource, PostRating, PostSize) & Desc(Desc), and Limit(integer).

1. Obama wins first debate TAGS: News. Politics. USA. War.
2. Save the World TAGS: Art. Beauty. Books. Chemistry. History. Legal. Money. My Stuff. Philosophy. Ramblings. Reading. Science. Sustainability. War. World.
3. Intelligence break led to bin Laden's hide-out TAGS: Military. News. Security. USA. Violence. War. World.

Before I go on, let me insert a link to the Transcript of presidential debate [http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/26/debate.mississippi.transcript/].

The polls pretty much say that Obama won by 13-15% over McCain. See http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/09/26/politics/horserace/entry4482028.shtml, and http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/why-voters-thought-obama-won.html. The general consensus is that since McCain was trailing in the polls, it was McCain who needed to pull a big win but he didn't.

I watched the entire first presidential debate between Barack Obama and John McCain yesterday. I liked how the host, good old Jim Lehrer, tried to have the two talk to each other. I liked the debate because there was some actual meat in there about the issues.

However, as a martial artist, the part I liked best was their back and forth on strategy versus tactics. Strategy from the Greek for head of the army and tactics from the Latin for touch, but I like the idea of head and hand. Strategy and tactics are cyclical because one man's strategy is another man's tactics. To McCain the Iraq war is a "strategy" because it establishes a democracy and an ally in the Mideast, which helps fight the larger war on terror. However to Obama, the Iraq war is a "tactic" because bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, and the Taliban were in Afghanistan, and they are the main threat from 9/11, and the main threat in the larger war on terror, and the Iraq War detracts from the Afghanistan war. McCain keeps insisting that Obama does not acknowledge that we are winning in Iraq, but that's not true. Obama just wants to put it in a larger perspective. [I don't even want to start the debate of why we went into Iraq in the first place. It wasn't so much WMD, but that Neocons took advantage of 9/11, etc.] You can see Obama's larger perspective with his energy plan because one of the biggest reason of why we have issues with the Mideast and Russia is because of our energy needs. Obama's aggressive 10 year plan for energy independence cannot be dismissed as a tree-hugging liberal dream, but should be seen as a serious far-sighted strategy for the economy and security. The emphasis McCain put on earmarking also shows their difference in perspective. Any waste/abuse/inefficiency is important, but it has to be given perspective. "Now, $18 billion is important; $300 billion is really important."

It was also fun to see Obama pick the fights with McCain. If there was no fight, he simply said I agree with McCain. But whenever McCain did some outright lies or a twist of truth, Obama hit back straight away. Furthermore, for some of McCain's smaller lies, Obama was gracious enough to merely deny it and then move on with the program.

McCain pulled out easily defeated canned talking points. McCain tried to get Obama for wanting to meet with foreign parties without preconditions and then denied that Kissinger, McCain's advisor for decades, agreed. Kissinger: Open direct Iran talks [http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/09/16/Kissinger_Open_direct_Iran_talks/UPI-46971221579660/]. Obama was right to point out that even Bush has finally acknowledged that the silent treatment hasn't worked with North Korea. To top it off, Obama pulled all this off while remaining calm, congenial, and controlled.

The one part where McCain led was with his experience. Simply talking about the places he's been, the people he's met, the thing's he's seen, and the things he's done shows that he's got mileage. You have to give McCain that. But the future is where we're going and for me it's not the experience but the vision. See http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2008/09/27/in-mccain-obama-debate-a-clash-of-two-visions/. Just as the silent treatment for enemies doesn't work (you should continue negotiations while continuing to advance your position), neither does too little of the right kinds of regulations, and neither does trickle down economics (see Supply Side Jesus [http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/09/17_franken.html] and http://blogs.venturacountystar.com/greenberg/qqxsgFiscalConservative.jpg). We have yet to see the financial crisis turn, but I'm clearly more for progressive taxes than regressive. See Comparison of the McCain and Obama Tax Plans [http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/06/comparison-of-t.html] and http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/obama-vs-mccain-tax-plans-obama-saves-you-more.html.

There's more to say but life goes on. Read more. Fact check. Use multiple sources. Think for yourself.

The upcoming Palin versus Biden Vice-Presidential debate should be fun. I hope that Palin is cramming enough so that she doesn't totally embarass herself again.

I am often embarrassed to write. The concept of wabi sabi (imperfect, impermanent, incomplete) helps, but feeling or knowing that I could write/think/process better tends to make me not write at all. I have to constantly remind myself that it's better to try and fail, than to never try at all. There are thoughts buzzing around in my head connecting science and morality and global/personal actions, but these thoughts haven't gelled together and they may never gel --especially if I don't write about it. So here goes another one of my free association scribbling sessions.

I'll start with throwing in some of the parts:

• The current United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009 [W] (2009-12-07/18) and the Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident [W] which I already wrote about briefly.
• Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies (1997) by Jared Diamond.
• Karl Popper [W]
• Charles Darwin, especially The Descent of Man (1871), the source of this quote:

  As man advances in civilisation, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all the members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races. If, indeed, such men are separated from him by great differences in appearance or habits, experience unfortunately shews us how long it is, before we look at them as our fellow-creatures. Sympathy beyond the confines of man, that is, humanity to the lower animals, seems to be one of the latest moral acquisitions. It is apparently unfelt by savages, except towards their pets. How little the old Romans knew of it is shewn by their abhorrent gladiatorial exhibitions. The very idea of humanity, as far as I could observe, was new to most of the Gauchos of the Pampas. This virtue, one of the noblest with which man is endowed, seems to arise incidentally from our sympathies becoming more tender and more widely diffused, until they are extended to all sentient beings. As soon as this virtue is honoured and practised by some few men, it spreads through instruction and example to the young, and eventually becomes incorporated in public opinion.

• Technological singularity [W]
• The loss of our polar ice caps, polar bears, and the great apes.
• The isolation of Cuba: The political, economic, social, and environmental effects.
• Robert Greene with his Machiavellian books on power, seduction, and war.
• My "List" that I started in my post called 150th anniversary of On the Origin of Species. I'm going to quickly copy that list here and quickly tack on a few things:
  • Health
  • Education. Wikipedia.
  • Wealth. Trade.
  • Sustainable and Robust. Solar.
  • Maximize Signal-to-Noise Ratio
  • Global. Personal.
  • Tech and Science. Nanotech. Space Elevators.
  • Epistemology
  • Beauty
  • Orange
  • Save history. Build future.
  • Introversion
  • Standards. Metric System.
  • Martial Arts. Fun.
  • Freedom. Tolerance for all but the intolerant.
  • Non-fixation
  • Maximize power as in more work in less time.
  • Math. Statistics.

Acck! Too many lists! I have problems with too many lists, too many quotes, too many qualifications, etc. There are times when I need to just jump to the meat.

One of the things is that while things like morality and sympathy seem warm (as opposed to cold), spiritual (instead of material), etc., such things are actually both. I have always maintained that it is statistically advantageous to be "good" instead of "evil". If you are good, then the society supports you, but if you are bad, then society is against you. Clearly you can do more as an agent of good. The scientists and economists have been working on all sorts of studies and models and tests that seem to support this. This story Social Scientists Build Case for 'Survival of the Kindest' is a recent one that supports that idea too.

There are various related ideas swirling around here:

• There is power in numbers, and vice versa.
• There is power in morality and sympathy, and vice versa.
• There is power in sustainability, and vice versa.
• There is power in luck, and vice versa.
• There is power in variety, and vice versa.

In Guns, Germs, and Steel, Jared Diamond showed that luck (the right mix of geography and local species) allowed some societies to grow in numbers and have variety and laws and technology and art, which translated into powerful civilizations. Volume of numbers is powerful, but so is the genius and uniqueness that can be found at the tail ends of the bell curve. When there is a crisis or a catastrophe, a majority of the populations suffers and sometimes the only salvation is found in the minority, the oddballs, the mutations.

Right now fossil fuels are the cheapest and most accessible source of power. That is an economic fact that is not in doubt. In contrast, what some folks (like Republicans) seem to disagree upon is the degree of danger presented by a fossil fuels. In any case, whether or not you believe that fossil fuels are poisonous and existence-threatening in nature, the fact is that fossil fuels will remain in wide use until something cheaper and more accessible comes along. Given the near-sightedness of people, the issue is one of presentation, non-free market economics and politics. It would be much simpler if it were simply a matter of science, technology, logistics, and free market economics.

In one sense the environmental problem is similar to the Cold War: There is the threat of genocide, but the problem is more political than technological. The difference is that masses believed in the extreme danger of nuclear weapons, but the masses do not believe in the extreme danger of human induced climatic change. Human technological cleverness unlocked the utility found in both nuclear and fossil fuels, but in order to survive the dangers found from both, it's not a matter of human technological cleverness, but a matter of consciousness raising. Saving the planet is not up to scientists and engineers, but up to those who can influence the people: parents, teachers, politicians, artists, and so on.

In case there was any doubt, I want to explicitly state that I do believe that we are indeed in great danger in fossil fuels. Why? Well, although I am a programmer now, my college degree was in Chemical Engineering. We studied chemical reactions yes, but the real thing we studied is simply the bathtub model: Stuff goes in, stuff goes out. Simply put:

• We're putting more carbon dioxide in, than is taken out: The level in the bathtub is rising!
• We're putting catalysts in the system: Catalysts tend to stay and their effect is magnified!

As far as the accuracy and details of the models, the degree of danger, the time frame of the danger, the possible actions, and so on, that's what these scientists who are studying the issue in an open, peer-reviewed manner are doing.

I believe in the fossil fuel danger, but it's not as terrible as nuclear annihilation. We can lose coastlines and ecosystems will change, we can lose species, artifacts, and human lives, but it won't be nuclear winter. Fossil fuels took millions of years to make and accumulate. We've only really started using it for around 150 years and yet we're nearly running out. But we'll adapt to life without natural fossil fuels. The issue is mitigating this stuff, as in coming down soft instead of hard. If I want to "save the world", I'll need to think some more.

Now and then I fall into this laissez-faire attitude. Just let it be; It'll be fine. The numbers will work things out. Morality will be encoded in laws. The concept of tolerance for all (except for the intolerant) will become mainstream. We'll have the trial-and-error of the masses and the geniuses in the tail ends of the bell curve. It will all work itself out. Eventually our artificial intelligence will self-improve and we'll hit The Technological Singularity, so all that's left will be for us to play.

If this is the case, then why wait for the future? Make a living. Interact and care for your family, friends, and planet to whatever degree you're comfortable with. Seek the beautiful. Don't worry. Be happy. All the science, art, technology, philosophy, and so on will advance whether you do anything or not. It won't matter to the rest of us if you're powerful, popular, successful, introverted, extroverted, talented, etc.

Is this all good? Is there anything truly interesting anymore? Is it just a matter of being and then dying? I don't know. I don't care. I may just be too hungry for lunch right now. If you don't eat, then you don't live (or write).

Of the articles I've read, this one has the most detail so far.

According to John Brennan, White House counterterrorism coordinator, the SEALs first tried to capture bin Laden but he resisted and used a woman, initially thought to be one of his wives, as a human shield as he fired shots at the attacking commandos.

Gaah! What scum!

The one flaw in the mission caused a brief moment of tension for President Obama and senior officials as they watched the operation unfold in real time Sunday afternoon at the White House, Mr. Brennan said.

The intelligence official said the one-acre compound, with two main buildings, was designed as a fortress, with walls up to 18 feet high, balconies with seven-foot-high privacy walls, and barbed wire along the top of the walls. The residents, unlikely to be mere neighbors, burned their trash as a security measure and it was equipped with two gates with opaque windows. Mr. Obama was first made aware of the Abbottabad compound in September and ordered action against it “as soon as he concluded that the intelligence case was sufficiently strong,” this official said. “A range of options for achieving the mission were developed, and on Friday he authorized the operation.”

A senior intelligence official said Monday that both visual identification at the scene and later DNA tests confirmed bin Laden was killed. His body was buried at sea from the USS Carl Vinson around 2 a.m. Monday in the north Arabian Sea.

Page Modified: (Hand noted: 2007-07-19 21:41:10Z) (Auto noted: 2010-12-24 22:08:01Z)