http://www.newsday.com/news/columnists/ny-oppin305351459aug30,0,2457073.column
This is Pinkerton's article, but there are thousands of others out there.
Here are my quick rushes to judgment on the matter which I'm sure many others have already stated:
* A Sting Operation? Do we really need to have law enforcement involved in these types of sting operations? Keep in mind that the crime here was a misdemeanor. And yes, I do not want to have to go into a bathroom in an airport restroom and listen to two men (or even a man and a woman, or two or more people) going at it. I've seen that in other countries primarily. It's amusing when you're blasted drunk at a bar in Reykjavik at 2am, but otherwise it's not something you really want to encounter. But again, is this something law enforcement really needs to be involved in for sting operations? How about just calling the cops when something is going on to have it stopped and have the people arrested on the spot? What kind of cop would volunteer for this? At least prostitution stings sound fun.
* GOP Bashing. The hypocrisy of some left leaning groups on this is pretty interesting to watch. If this were not a conservative Republican Senator we would hear all kinds of conspiracy theories about how this was a set-up by the right wing media, how the police are strictly targeting homosexuals who have sex in inappropriate places instead of straight couples who do the same, etc., etc. Instead, a lot of the people who claim to represent the gay community are seeing this as a better chance to republican bash rather than use it as an opportunity to prove their points that homosexuality is much more widespread among the general population than anyone cares to admit. Way to shoot yourself in the foot! way to show your real agenda!
* Senator Craig. I'm reading about this and I cannot help but come to the conclusion that Senator Craig is on the down-low or is a full blown homosexual (no pun intended) but is either in a state of denial or is lying through his teeth to save himself. It's sort of fascinating to watch but in the long run I don't care what his own personal demons have lead him to. He didn't harm anyone as far as I can tell and he is guilty of nothing more than having low class in this instance. He's probably done this before though, so who knows what this will do to his home life.
* Bashing by the GOP. Everyone seems to be keen to throw him out of the Senate but it seems obvious at this point that a simple misdemeanor is not sufficient to give rise to an expulsion. I have such contempt for Congress, the President, and the government at this point with the way they have spent us into oblivion and seem keen on keeping us in Iraq and possible Iran for the next 20 years, that someone attempting to get his jollies in public restroom doesn't strike me in the least as being a real crime. The quick call to sacrifice him to the masses by his own party leadership shows what a contemptible bunch of scoundrels the GOP has become. Keep in mind also that Ted Kennedy killed someone by driving drunk and he is still in the Senate. Senator Craig didn't even get the satisfaction of committing a real crime.
* Police Interrogation. The interrogation of the Senator sounded pretty intense and it's seems at certain points that were badgering him to get a confession. It almost seems that he pleaded guilty just to get out of the office. Now granted, that works sometimes to get innocent people to confess if they don't have a very strong will, but this is, after all, a U.S. Senator. He's attempting to recant his guilty plea now on a number of bases that don't sound terribly convincing. As I see it though, this is not a real crime or one that should really be used against him. If Clinton can lie in a civil trial, cheat on his wife, and first lie and then later admit to it in public, I don't see why this is such a big deal.
I still think the real story hear is that they are conducting sting operations in an airport men's room to curtail consensual gay sex. Just call security.
Also, I will be avoiding public bathrooms in airports for a while.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Breaking the Light Barrier
'We have broken speed of light'
This has always been a pet peeve of mine. The theory of General Relativity does not say that nothing can travel faster than light. That is an implication of the theory - and apparently one that Einstein also believed, but this apparent breakthrough - whether it is real or not - doesn't destroy General Relativity. E=mc2 means that nothing with any mass can travel faster than light.
If photons are measured as moving faster than the speed of light (and the reading is accurate) then one of two things is happening. Either space is being bent in a way that brings the two points closer together - hence no change in the speed of a light photon, or a mechanism has been developed to allow a photon (something without mass) to travel faster than the ordinary speed of a photon. I do not see this as breaking General Relativity no matter what the pundits say. This is how science gets dumbed down - an abstraction become a cliche and people test new phenomenon against the cliche, not the real theory.
The implication may be that if we can accelerate light then we can accelerate something with mass. These are two different creatures altogether though, so don't jump to that conclusion. General Relativity still works for things with mass. Changing the energy in a system to accelerate something without mass does not destroy GR.
I still think that it will one day be possible to move things "faster than the speed of light", but it can only be done by manipulating space - curving it a la science fiction - which again with not violate GR since the object will still not be able to travel faster than what E=mc2 dictates. GR sets the limit on how an object with mass can travel and how its frame of reference is modified depending on its speed (hence the relativity part). GR does not limit how fast something without mass can travel or prevent something with mass from traveling between points faster than a photon. In the latter case however, space has to be manipulated since GR is accurate and will not be violated.
This has always been a pet peeve of mine. The theory of General Relativity does not say that nothing can travel faster than light. That is an implication of the theory - and apparently one that Einstein also believed, but this apparent breakthrough - whether it is real or not - doesn't destroy General Relativity. E=mc2 means that nothing with any mass can travel faster than light.
If photons are measured as moving faster than the speed of light (and the reading is accurate) then one of two things is happening. Either space is being bent in a way that brings the two points closer together - hence no change in the speed of a light photon, or a mechanism has been developed to allow a photon (something without mass) to travel faster than the ordinary speed of a photon. I do not see this as breaking General Relativity no matter what the pundits say. This is how science gets dumbed down - an abstraction become a cliche and people test new phenomenon against the cliche, not the real theory.
The implication may be that if we can accelerate light then we can accelerate something with mass. These are two different creatures altogether though, so don't jump to that conclusion. General Relativity still works for things with mass. Changing the energy in a system to accelerate something without mass does not destroy GR.
I still think that it will one day be possible to move things "faster than the speed of light", but it can only be done by manipulating space - curving it a la science fiction - which again with not violate GR since the object will still not be able to travel faster than what E=mc2 dictates. GR sets the limit on how an object with mass can travel and how its frame of reference is modified depending on its speed (hence the relativity part). GR does not limit how fast something without mass can travel or prevent something with mass from traveling between points faster than a photon. In the latter case however, space has to be manipulated since GR is accurate and will not be violated.
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Success and the Surge
The ultimate problem in Iraq is that no matter how successful our military might be at eliminating any insurgency or terrorism on the ground, there will never be a political solution that revolves around a strong central government. The various political factions will never be willing to compromise on any major issues or stick to their word on any agreement. This is one of the main reasons our troops are having some much difficulty on the ground in the first place.
We should either federalize Iraq into distinct units now or let them do it on their own through a civil war. Either way our troops should be coming home before the end of this year. Otherwise we will just be wasting more lives and more money for a lost cause. Iraq is not ready for national democracy, nor will it ever be because it is not a nation-state. It is post-WW I compromise based on administrative divisions in the Ottoman empire. They either need to split up or go through the same civil war process that every other democracy on earth has gone through at one time or another in order to evolve into a true democracy.
Although any nation or province in the world is vulnerable to attack or civil war, I don’t think the Kurdish areas have anything to fear from their fellow Arab Iraqis for the same reason they are being left alone now. They were slaughtered in the early 90s (and periodically in the 80s) so that Hussein could keep strong control over the region. That could happen theoretically in Iraq if another military warlord decides he wants to take over the whole country again. But for now, they have quasi-independence and everyone seems to leave them alone. The U.S. leaving will not likely change that dynamic since we don’t seem to have much control or influence over it in the first place.
The Sunni Arabs, with whom the Kurds are intermixed in several areas have gotten along with their fellow Sunnis with few problems (and likely would not alienate the Kurds out of fear of Shiite domination). The Shiites don’t hold them responsible in any way for Hussein’s atrocities against them either. I could see the day when a Shiite dictator decides to dominate the entire country again, but I suspect that the Kurds are now armed to the teeth and would do a good job resisting any attack from any existing army or militia that exists now. They will also have plenty of time to create a real army to resist any subsequent dictatorship that may arise that does have the command of a modern army.
One of the reasons Slovenia was able to declare independence from Yugoslavia with few repercussions is because the nation was almost 100% Slovene with few Serbs. Yugoslavia left after a 10-day war with them because Slovenia was fully armed and would have given the Yugoslav army a real bloody nose if they had continued to stay. Right now, there really is no strong army in Iraq under anyone’s command (other than the U.S. army). All of the militias are basically armed thugs and would be slaughtered if they attempted to invade someone’s home territory with no logistical backing, command structure, air support, or armored vehicles. Having control and order in Iraq is all about having the support of the local population.
Any civil war will likely leave the Kurds largely untouched. The thing that the Kurds do have to fear is potential invasion from Turkey, Iran, and Syria, all of which have large Kurdish enclaves that those countries try to maintain strict control over. Recently Turkey massed a large number of troops at the northern border of Iraq to supposedly quell rebel activity in southeastern Turkey. A few months ago Charles Krauthammer prosed moving U.S. troops into the Kurdish area, let the civil war takes in course, and then move back in to mop up and cooperate with everyone left once they had come to their senses. That may not be a bad idea.
We should either federalize Iraq into distinct units now or let them do it on their own through a civil war. Either way our troops should be coming home before the end of this year. Otherwise we will just be wasting more lives and more money for a lost cause. Iraq is not ready for national democracy, nor will it ever be because it is not a nation-state. It is post-WW I compromise based on administrative divisions in the Ottoman empire. They either need to split up or go through the same civil war process that every other democracy on earth has gone through at one time or another in order to evolve into a true democracy.
Although any nation or province in the world is vulnerable to attack or civil war, I don’t think the Kurdish areas have anything to fear from their fellow Arab Iraqis for the same reason they are being left alone now. They were slaughtered in the early 90s (and periodically in the 80s) so that Hussein could keep strong control over the region. That could happen theoretically in Iraq if another military warlord decides he wants to take over the whole country again. But for now, they have quasi-independence and everyone seems to leave them alone. The U.S. leaving will not likely change that dynamic since we don’t seem to have much control or influence over it in the first place.
The Sunni Arabs, with whom the Kurds are intermixed in several areas have gotten along with their fellow Sunnis with few problems (and likely would not alienate the Kurds out of fear of Shiite domination). The Shiites don’t hold them responsible in any way for Hussein’s atrocities against them either. I could see the day when a Shiite dictator decides to dominate the entire country again, but I suspect that the Kurds are now armed to the teeth and would do a good job resisting any attack from any existing army or militia that exists now. They will also have plenty of time to create a real army to resist any subsequent dictatorship that may arise that does have the command of a modern army.
One of the reasons Slovenia was able to declare independence from Yugoslavia with few repercussions is because the nation was almost 100% Slovene with few Serbs. Yugoslavia left after a 10-day war with them because Slovenia was fully armed and would have given the Yugoslav army a real bloody nose if they had continued to stay. Right now, there really is no strong army in Iraq under anyone’s command (other than the U.S. army). All of the militias are basically armed thugs and would be slaughtered if they attempted to invade someone’s home territory with no logistical backing, command structure, air support, or armored vehicles. Having control and order in Iraq is all about having the support of the local population.
Any civil war will likely leave the Kurds largely untouched. The thing that the Kurds do have to fear is potential invasion from Turkey, Iran, and Syria, all of which have large Kurdish enclaves that those countries try to maintain strict control over. Recently Turkey massed a large number of troops at the northern border of Iraq to supposedly quell rebel activity in southeastern Turkey. A few months ago Charles Krauthammer prosed moving U.S. troops into the Kurdish area, let the civil war takes in course, and then move back in to mop up and cooperate with everyone left once they had come to their senses. That may not be a bad idea.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Housing Bubble and Mortgage Crunch
One of the worst kinds of tragedies is one that can be observed as its happening, predicted exactly, and one which people could be extricated from if they listened to reasonable advice.
That is what is happening right now with the housing market and mortgage companies.
Interest rates are precipitously lowered, refinancing goes up. Borrowing goes up. More people can afford to buy new homes. The dramatic increase in the amount of money available for purchases dramatically raises the prices of available housing. Sale prices go up. Rent goes up. Existing builders expand production of new houses. New builders form. More Realtors are needed. More lenders, more title insurance companies, more title searchers.
As soon as the well dries up, however, everything comes crashing down. All of the business expansion and planning done when times are good usually never takes into account what happens when the demand dries up. New developments are essentially ghost towns. Everyone is overstaffed. Those that wish to remain in the business start undercutting each other's prices. This happens both in the service sector and in the housing sector. The decrease in the price of new homes drives down the prices of existing homes (my own 20 year-old home cost me more last year than new homes with more square footage are selling for in my area now). It is really bad in more crowded housing markets like San Francisco, D.C., and Las Vegas.
What even more insidious about this bust is that lenders had even more creative ways of getting people into the home buying market. I'm not referring to mortgage application fraud which was of course rampant (and for which the consumers are partially responsible) but to the new interest only or negative amortization mortgages that created a false expectation that payments would stay low and that any mortgages could be refinanced in a few years at roughly the same rate.
The opening of the flood gates and its inevitable results were predicted by all during the boom. It has done quite a number on our economy too since so many people have moved into jobs related to the housing boom but who no longer have the customers to keep their businesses afloat. This is the market working inefficiently because it is not really working as a market. It has been artificially created and destroyed.
That is what is happening right now with the housing market and mortgage companies.
Interest rates are precipitously lowered, refinancing goes up. Borrowing goes up. More people can afford to buy new homes. The dramatic increase in the amount of money available for purchases dramatically raises the prices of available housing. Sale prices go up. Rent goes up. Existing builders expand production of new houses. New builders form. More Realtors are needed. More lenders, more title insurance companies, more title searchers.
As soon as the well dries up, however, everything comes crashing down. All of the business expansion and planning done when times are good usually never takes into account what happens when the demand dries up. New developments are essentially ghost towns. Everyone is overstaffed. Those that wish to remain in the business start undercutting each other's prices. This happens both in the service sector and in the housing sector. The decrease in the price of new homes drives down the prices of existing homes (my own 20 year-old home cost me more last year than new homes with more square footage are selling for in my area now). It is really bad in more crowded housing markets like San Francisco, D.C., and Las Vegas.
What even more insidious about this bust is that lenders had even more creative ways of getting people into the home buying market. I'm not referring to mortgage application fraud which was of course rampant (and for which the consumers are partially responsible) but to the new interest only or negative amortization mortgages that created a false expectation that payments would stay low and that any mortgages could be refinanced in a few years at roughly the same rate.
The opening of the flood gates and its inevitable results were predicted by all during the boom. It has done quite a number on our economy too since so many people have moved into jobs related to the housing boom but who no longer have the customers to keep their businesses afloat. This is the market working inefficiently because it is not really working as a market. It has been artificially created and destroyed.
Friday, August 3, 2007
Pinkerton's tongue in cheek on Iraq
Pinkerton: Where's Saddam when you need him?
A good piece although it has some of the history wrong (or at least mischaracterizes a few things). It does, however, effectively state some things that should be obvious to everyone but isn't:
Don't waste your breath telling me we are there to fight terrorism.
A good piece although it has some of the history wrong (or at least mischaracterizes a few things). It does, however, effectively state some things that should be obvious to everyone but isn't:
- Our war with Iraq has made Iran's position relatively stronger in the region.
- Any success of the American military will only be temporary and will never result in a political solution
- No Iraqi government will be viewed as legitimate by the Iraqis until we are gone (at which time the country will degenerate into chaos)
- A country like Iraq, with its underlying ethnic, political, and religious tensions, can only be held together by a ruthless military strongman like Saddam Hussein
Don't waste your breath telling me we are there to fight terrorism.
Drunks in Space
Krauthammer Defends Drunken Astronauts
Although I disagree with his general enthusiasm for continuing manned missions into space, it is nice to see that he and I are once again on the same wavelength. This drunken astronauts is a nothing story unless they actually somehow jeopardized the mission.
The reality is that these are not the pilots. They can report on the conditions inside the vehicle, but they have no more control over the lift-off into space than an infant in a car seat. They are along for the ride.
If someone told me I was going up in a spaceship, that my chances of dying during the launch were about 1 in 200 and that I had no control over what happened, I would want to be at least somewhat inebriated to overcome my fear and also deaden my nerve endings a little in the event of a calamity. I would also want a big bottle of Jack Daniel's for the ride back.
Alcohol: The cause and solution to all of the life's problems.
Although I disagree with his general enthusiasm for continuing manned missions into space, it is nice to see that he and I are once again on the same wavelength. This drunken astronauts is a nothing story unless they actually somehow jeopardized the mission.
The reality is that these are not the pilots. They can report on the conditions inside the vehicle, but they have no more control over the lift-off into space than an infant in a car seat. They are along for the ride.
If someone told me I was going up in a spaceship, that my chances of dying during the launch were about 1 in 200 and that I had no control over what happened, I would want to be at least somewhat inebriated to overcome my fear and also deaden my nerve endings a little in the event of a calamity. I would also want a big bottle of Jack Daniel's for the ride back.
Alcohol: The cause and solution to all of the life's problems.
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
Iraq again - of course
This was a headline story on the BBC TV news this morning, but seems to have been buried by CNN, the BBC, and Fox.
BAGHDAD (CNN) -- Iraq's largest Sunni political bloc announced it was withdrawing from the coalition government led by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, a Shiite, because of his failure to meet their demands.
The Iraqi Accord Front, which has 44 members of parliament, threatened last week to remove its six ministers from the cabinet.
The front has been critical of legislative stalemates and the failure to achieve national reconciliation.
Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi -- a leader of the Iraqi Islamic Party, the most powerful group in the Accord Front -- and five other Sunni ministers said they would submit their resignations Wednesday.
One of the goals for Iraq's government is national reconciliation, but that has been an elusive vision in the fractious government. Under the Saddam Hussein regime, the Sunni minority held sway, with Kurds and Shiites marginalized. (Posted 6:14 a.m.)
The list of demands - which I can't find now - actually sounded reasonable. To me, this is just another indication that a united Iraq or an Iraq under a strong centralized government is a flawed premise. Despite whatever supposed positive results "The Surge" is having, this will not result in anything permanent.
Think about it this way. Even if Iraq were in a state of total peace would they be able to arrive at a political solution? The answer, based on today's actions is an emphatic no.
BAGHDAD (CNN) -- Iraq's largest Sunni political bloc announced it was withdrawing from the coalition government led by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, a Shiite, because of his failure to meet their demands.
The Iraqi Accord Front, which has 44 members of parliament, threatened last week to remove its six ministers from the cabinet.
The front has been critical of legislative stalemates and the failure to achieve national reconciliation.
Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi -- a leader of the Iraqi Islamic Party, the most powerful group in the Accord Front -- and five other Sunni ministers said they would submit their resignations Wednesday.
One of the goals for Iraq's government is national reconciliation, but that has been an elusive vision in the fractious government. Under the Saddam Hussein regime, the Sunni minority held sway, with Kurds and Shiites marginalized. (Posted 6:14 a.m.)
The list of demands - which I can't find now - actually sounded reasonable. To me, this is just another indication that a united Iraq or an Iraq under a strong centralized government is a flawed premise. Despite whatever supposed positive results "The Surge" is having, this will not result in anything permanent.
Think about it this way. Even if Iraq were in a state of total peace would they be able to arrive at a political solution? The answer, based on today's actions is an emphatic no.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)