| Thursday,
January 16, 2002 Mail about Fred when
I get back from my walk. Meanwhile, Joel Rosenberg on starting the war.
I'll take a shy at it.
The political maneuvering will, of course, come
first. There'll be another trip to the UN, and at least a move toward yet
another final warning to Saddam there.
Regardless of what happens at the UN, a public final
warning, with a deadline, will be issued by the Administration, and the
Iraqis will affect to be prepared to consider discussing negotiating
compliance, and the deadline will pass. The Administration may or may not
publicly declare all of Iraq to be a No-Fly zone as of the passing of the
deadline, but it will treat it that way.
It'll get quiet, for about a week, but never
completely quiet. The behind-the-scenes negotiation to get Saddam to leave
for Switzerland or Riyadh will go on, but fail. There'll be a few
preliminary air sorties, just to see if the Iraqis will light up radars
and bring up their AAA and SAM batteries, and to keep them on, but those
will fail.
And then, either just before sunrise or just after
sunset (I think the latter is more likely) the air war goes off, all at
once, with no more preliminaries, no warm-up. The closest thing to a
preliminary will be the combination of stealth aircraft/cruise missile
strikes at all the radars that have been identified, but that will precede
the next step by hours.
Everything that can fly and drop stuff will; ditto
for the sea-launched missiles. The twin objectives will be to flatten
anything military that's locked in place and to pin down/isolate all the
Iraqi forces that haven't yet retreated to Baghdad.
Demands for surrender will be made by the US/Allied
forces and the Iraqis will eagerly agree to discuss not surrender, but the
end to the "US aggression", as soon as the bombing stops.
Which it won't.
The ground invasion comes at least a week later,
probably from two directions,
I'd go on, but you did ask how the war starts, not
how the Pentagon decides to handle Baghdad . . . and that's much less
clear to me.
-- http://islamthereligionofpeace.blogspot.com
And we have, to make us more
secure:
Dear Jerry,
More JBT follies:
http://www4.fosters.com/News2003/
January2003/Jan_13/News/reg_me_0113a.asp
So some jacked-up poltroon can arbitrarily decide
that your stuff "looks like" a bomb, and gets ticked off by a
perfectly reasonable note ("in bad taste" == "not properly
deferential"?) and the couple spend three days in jail under threat
of felony charges.
The requirement that we keep our luggage unlocked
(for "security", of course), places every traveller at risk.
Whether it is someone stealing property, or using one's luggage as a means
of transporting illegal substances (how long before baggage handlers
realize this?), we are increasingly stripped of our rights and placed at
the mercy of others.
How long will Americans tolerate this state of
affairs? I fear I know the answer... :-(
Regards,
Gordon Runkle
===== Even if you're on the right track, you'll get
run over if you just sit there. -- Will Rogers
In Imperial Rome the one crime that would get you
every time was lese majeste; maiestas was unforgivable. One would think
that Americans would have learned this by now. In the US, it is not the
Emperor who cannot be mocked; it is the Imperium, and the servants of
Empire who brook no maiestas.
On that score several have sent this. If you are
sufficiently well known and famous, you may be exempt. So far.
I was at Lawrence Lessig's site finding out more
about the unfortunate decision for Eldred vs. Ashcroft. I also found this
link and thought it might be of interest.
http://pennandteller.com/sincity/
penniphile/federalvip.html
On his site, Lessig warns not to try this if you're
not famous.
Patrick Bowman
But I would not count on it, even if you are a
court jester.
Somewhat on subject,
Dear Dr. Pournelle,
A report on MSNBC told of the US government concern
for the vulnerability of airliners to cheap man-carried missiles. They are
reacting in their usual fashion. We can only hope the terrorists will
collapse in giggling fits before they act.
I submit one scenario for one airport: The airliners
landing at San Diego CA fly through the business district low enough that
passengers can see into the upper stories of business buildings. A
terrorist would need one antitank cannon, WWI vintage would do. An
artillery expert would use observation and the known approach speed of
landing aircraft to aim the cannon. He would then leave. The terrorist
would fire the cannon, located in an office or on the roof, then leave
immediately. He might even escape. The cannon, very cheap on the surplus
market, could be abandoned.
Similar simple plans could be drawn up for any
airport close to a big city or seaport. My suggestion for Homeland
Security is to borrow orange traffic cones from street maintenance to use
as thinking caps. If Homeland Security wishes respect, it can earn it.
regards,
William L. Jones wljones@dallas.net
And we can all think of variations on that theme.
Homeland Security seems unable to think about much at all other than ways
to harass the citizens. So it goes.
And now a lot of mail about Fred
on Everything.
Dear Mr. Pournelle, I had to read the page on the
Charlotte resegregation (Is that even a word? ::shrug:: It is now...)
three times. The first time, I thought that he was being folksy and
sarcastic. Then I thought that he was being folksy and truthfully
ignorant. After the third read, and checking his other columns, I've come
to the sad conclusion that he's an intelligent man who uses a folksy style
to sugarcoat ignorant opinions and hide the occasional outright
untruth.
Yes, Fred, black and white people do mix together
socially. Heck... sometimes we get really crazy and let some of the
lighter skin mud people like Mexicans party with us. My black son did
-not- have a desire to find a black dorm at his college. At my workplace,
there are no complaints that the minorities are being oppressed -or-
getting a sweetheart deal (we're too busy defending your right to spout
ignorance; not that I begrudge you that right...).
Of course, the most telling comment is "Do you
see more whites at black parties? I don't know. I've never been to
one.". Which is fine. I am all for freedom of association, and
freedom -from- association... in the privacy of your own home. What Fred
doesn't seem to get (or willfully ignores) is that this cannot be allowed
when it comes to public spaces.
Is Fred completely wrong? Of course not. Blind pigs
find truffles too. There are racial problems in this country. Heck, I've
been discriminated against myself. Some minorities feel shafted. Some
white people feel that minorities are getting a sweetheart deal.
Occasionally both sides are even right. The good news is that every year
things get incrementally better. Are they getting better fast enough?
Definitely not fast enough for some... and judging from this article,
probably too fast for others.
Respectfully, Dave Langdon
"For every problem, there is a solution which
is simple, neat, and wrong." --H. L. Mencken
And:
One simple statement about Blogs: I would never,
ever, pay for a Blog.
I went to a very ethnically diverse high school, and
I always remember one thing. In the lunchroom, the only time the kids got
together as a collective group and decided for themselves who they were
gonna hang out with, the story was 100% the same. Black kids sat together,
asian kids sat together, latinos sat together, whites filled the rest of
the space. There were rare cases of integration, but it was more often a
tale of rejection from the original group rather than seeking out
integration.
Fred said some pretty deep voodoo there. I wonder
how much the negativity of these forced interactions, in amongst the
realities that everyone in school is equally unskilled socially, and it
seems that it gets exactly the opposite outcome from the intended: more
bitterness underscored by lots of bad, forced, rats-in-a-cage experiences.
Hm.
-K
Keith C. Langill
These two letters ought to be taken together.
Forced integration is no more appropriate for a
republic than is legal segregation. The one is law, the other social.
Forced integration of schools that destroys the
neighborhood school system and divorces the parents from interest in the
local school is one of the most pernicious doctrines imaginable, and
responsible in large part for the rise of private schools.
A good public school system with real education
and considerable local control, including parental involvement, with
association by neighborhoods, will result in a fair degree of
"segregation"; but it is also voluntary. Allowing voluntary
transfers can somewhat alleviate neighborhood boundaries. But the notion
that a black child is somehow better off spending 2 hours a day on a bus
so that he can have a magical association with white children is at best a
questionable proposition; maybe if the money were spent on more or better
teachers for the black school?
As to "diversity" in universities, the
result is usually the opposite of what its advocates say they intend;
since the consequences are so predictable it makes one wonder at the true
intent. Taking a kid who would do well at UCLA but didn't qualify for
California Institute of Technology, and sending him to CalTech where he is
almost certain to flunk out gives the CalTech students a view that would
not want; just as taking a kid who would do well at Cal State Northridge
and sending him to UCLA for "diversity" does little for
anyone.
I am not entirely sure that segregating all
colleges by IQ is such a great idea to begin with; but if we are going to
mostly do that, then we had better be prepared for the consequences.
A good public school system is one of the better
ways to redistribute wealth. If everyone goes to public schools, then the
wealthy will voluntarily contribute to those schools. This has happened in
many lands, and could happen here; but not unless the wealthy believe
their children will profit from a public education.
That requires, incidentally, a degree of tracking
in public schools, as well as "segregation" by discipline and
behavior: and that must be color blind in both directions. It seldom
is.
One wonders if we must hit bottom before deciding
on real public school reforms?
On other matters: the science fiction community
has always been color blind, to the extent of becoming irked when anyone
tries to use race one way or another. Even so, it is hardly
"integrated" in the sense of any "balance" in numbers,
at conventions, parties, club meetings, or anywhere else. There is a mild
over representation of Jewish and Oriental, and (based on populations) a
severe under representation of Black people; but it's easy to see that's
not on any basis of racial discrimination, because within the science
fiction community, both fan and professional, race has always been
irrelevant. From the earliest days I knew him, Mr. Heinlein was always
equally warmly polite to people of all races who were polite to him, and
equally curt and cold to people of all races whom he thought deserved
that. I always thought that to be the essence of being color blind.
And see below.
"The current war is being touted as a war of
good vs. evil, by us and Al-Qaeda. And it is. But to define it even closer
to the core, it is a war between cultures that drink and those that
don't."
http://www.moderndrunkardmagazine.com
/issues/12_02/12-02-baghdad.htm
===== -- John E. Bartley,
I used to point out that alcohol using cultures
are often quite different from hashish using cultures. I haven't thought
about that for some time. Northern breeds of mankind don't tolerate
alcohol well, and seem more prone to alcoholism than southern. I am not
sure why that is so, nor is it universal, but the more Celt or
Scandinavian in one's ancestry, the more likely alcohol addiction.
I am not at all sure of the importance of the
observation quoted.
Changing subjects... The war on Iraq is going to
start when we mysteriously lose a transport plane. All the
reservists/guardsmen on board will be lost. Wailing and gnashing of teeth
will commence over the loss of these "citizen soldiers". Bombing
will start soon after. "Remember the Maine!" Oops... wrong
war.
While we're on the subject of war predictions, am I
the only person who wonders if one of North Korea's nukes will be used to
clear the mine field in the DMZ when things get hot?
Respectfully, Dave Langdon
Interesting speculation, and thanks.
Now here's an offer that even if it is only in
chance in 10^8 of being true has a reasonable expected value:
As you've mentioned in the past, anyone with email
will get plenty of offers to help African bureaucrats transfer surplus
money out of their nations, but today I received one that really tries to
make it worth the effort:
"...WE HAVE EIGHTEN-FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND
MILLION US DOLLARS..."
That's $9,000,000,000,000, and I get 30%!
Al
which, of course, shows the fallacy in simple
expected value calculations. However, when the lottery expected value of a
ticket goes to 90% or more of the ticket cost, I do buy a ticket. I am
reminded of the man who prayed, "God, why won't you ever let me win
the lottery?" and received the reply "You have never bought a
ticket."
Now a new chapter in the
Lomborg Debate
Jerry, I see that The Economist (as quoted by Terry
Cole) has truncated the final sentence of Mr. Schneider's quotation, as is
so very, very often done on the web. Do a google search for 'stephen
schneider effective honest', and you'll see that there is quite a large
contingent of folks who show no qualms about (or awareness of) excerpting
Schneider's statement to put a very particular spin on his original
statement. I don't suppose I consider that any more worthy a tactic than
censuring Mr. Lombard, do you?
"On the one hand, as scientists we are
ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but - which means that we must include
all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand,
we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people
we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context
translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous
climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to
capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads
of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make
simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we
might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in
cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right
balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means
being both."
Schneider's commentary on being continually spun is
at
http://www.aps.org/apsnews/0896/11592.html
-- Jonathan Abbey jonabbey@ganymeta.org
Austin, TX http://www.ganymeta.org/
It is true that the complete statement is a bit
less damning, and it is certainly unfair to print only the truncated
version. Having said all that, the treatment of Schneider is nowhere near
as savage as the treatment of Lomborg; nor was Schneider denouncing Hanson
and some of the others he was talking about at the time.
Do also note that in Lomborg's reply to Schneider
(you can find it at http://www.greenspirit.com/lomborg/
) he does give the entire Schneider quote.
And
Regarding The Skeptical Environmentalist:
Dear Jerry,
An interesting analysis of Lomborg's book is here if
you are interested.
http://www.csicop.org/si/2002-11/environment.html
Best regards & Scratch the pup's ears for me,
Lee W. Plaisted
---
"Even in the valley of the shadow of death, two
and two do not make six." Leo Tolstoy on his deathbed, refusing to
reconcile himself with the Russian Orthodox Church
But in fact I don't find that analysis very
informative: it keeps telling us that Lomborg is wrong, but it doesn't
tell much about what is in fact wrong.
I did find that the original Scientific American
articles with Lomborg's replies have been posted (Lomborg took it down due
to legal threats from Scientific American). The place you will find the
original and Lomborg's replies may surprise you:
http://www.greenspirit.com/lomborg/
I did find that interesting because specific; I
fear the Skeptical Inquirer stayed too general for my tastes. In any
event, I do urge that readers look at Lomborg's replies, which are given
with the original Scientific American critique. Once that is digested it's
easier to evaluate just what is going one.
And I return to my own views: we need to invest
in finding out what the devil is happening to the climate; but rushing
about to apply remedies before we know what is wrong is not the proper way
to go about it.
And we have
Dear Dr Pournelle, When reading
Richard M. Fisher's review in the Skeptical Enquirer of Lomborg's book,
you should bear a few things in mind.
First, he describes himself as a scientist and
lawyer. In fact he teaches environmental studies to international students
here at a New Zealand college, which arguably makes him a Sociologist sort
of scientist if he is one at all; he also has a law degree which he
deploys in the service of environmental activism (usually in the company
of real lawyers).
Second, just what is he doing writing for the
Skeptical Enquirer? He is hardly an unbiased observer, let alone a
skeptic, and his background in statistics is comparatively negligible,
certainly in comparison to Lomborg (or any of the staff in this department
for that matter).
Third, Fisher accuses Lomborg and his supporters of
scientific distortions; specifically, demolition of a 'straw man',
improper authority, ad hominem attacks on opponents, and
inconsistency.
To support these charges, he invokes the holy name
of Carl Sagan and his 'baloney detection toolkit'- basically a variant of
Bacon's "Idols" which classify intellectual error. Idols of the
tribe, the cave, the marketplace, and the theatre correspond roughly to
human error, personal blindness, sloppy language and prejudice
respectively. But so far as I can determine, Fisher's own criticism is
itself a good example of worship before these idols.
Fisher begins alleging Lomborg puts up a 'straw man'
argument. This is commonly understood as attributing to your antagonist an
opinion he does not in fact hold. Trouble is, Lomborg's opponents did in
fact hold that position. Fisher calls it an early error, later disavowed,
but intellectual inertia means it is still quoted as authoritative, and
his quote of Lovejoy to the contrary is dated 2002.
Fisher continues with false argument from authority
- one of the idols of the cave. Noting that one high-profile geneticist
(Matt Ridley) has long been in favour of economic development to help
sustain ecologies under threat, he complains that the public would see
only support from a renowned scientist, not advocacy by a former Economist
editor, and doesn't seem to see that this is a mirror image of Lomborg's
complaint about the environmentalists Fisher is defending.
The argument ad hominem and inconsistency
allegations are likewise mirror images of those Lomborg directs to the
enviromentalists.
From Fisher's review one could easily get the
impression that The Economist approved Lomborg's material without
reservation. However they did declare their bias in advance:
< http://www.economist.com/science/
displaystory.cfm?story_id=965718 >). "The Economist is not a
neutral in all this ... The Economist for that matter does not say that Mr
Lomborg is right about every issue he addresses. Environmental policy
involves uncertainty, as Mr Lomborg emphasises; now and then this raises
doubts that deserve more attention than he gives them (see below)."
They did take pains to point out the areas where
they felt Lomborg's analysis was flawed (see < http://www.economist.com/science/
displaystory.cfm?story_id=965520 >), but noted: "We do
believe, however, that he is right on his main points, that his critique
of much green activism and its reporting in the media is just, and, above
all, that where there is room for disagreement, Mr Lomborg invites and
facilitates discussion, rather than seeking to silence it. The same cannot
be said for many of his critics."
I guess the skeptics among us will have to judge for
themselves. Personally I reckon the lack of skepticism of those like
Fisher is of no importance. You can't convert a religious nut by argument:
as Ridley notes of another environmentalist, his arguments appear less
like "defending science, and more like defending a faith".
What is much more bothersome is the concern of Woods
Hole researchers and others who worry about a sudden change from one
stable climatic state to another. Physicists and Engineers know how
introducing heat to an isolated thermodynamic system leads to instability.
A pan on a hot plate starts with pure conduction to open air, but as the
temperature difference rises the smooth temperature gradient gives way to
convection cells; first two, then four and finally a chaotic state called
'boiling'. By similar physical effects, it is possible the major ocean
currents could meander into different paths, and if that happens all bets
are off. A lot more research needs to be done into that possibility.
Regards, TC -- Terry Cole BA/BSc/BE/BA(hons) (tcole@maths.otago.ac.nz)
System Administrator, Dept. of Maths. & Stats., Otago Uni.
I have never had much faith in The Skeptical
Inquirer; now I have less. As to Carl Sagan, he was an old friend of
sorts, but we had our fights, and on the "nuclear winter" issue
Carl was intemperate and willing to distort facts he was quite aware of
because he thought the issue sufficiently important. When Carl was being a
scientist he was a good one. He was also a good advocate, but he sometimes
got the roles confused.
And let me say it one more time: the important
thing is that we need to find out more, not begin remedies first. But
remedies and policy are where the real money go; science is cheap compared
to economic policies.
As witness
Dear Dr. Pournelle , As you've said many times - we
need to study this "global warming" !
http://www.helsinki-hs.net/news.asp?id=20030110IE5
According to the Finnish Meteorological Institute
there is a fair amount of uncertainty about the coming weather forecasts.
Prediction models longer than two days tend to break into several
directions. This may or may not indicate change. Anything is possible.
Statistics reveal that this year winter arrived earlier than usual and
"overnight". The autumn was here today and gone tomorrow.
Usually autumn lingers around for eight to nine weeks. This time the
season lasted a measly four weeks. The trees hadn't undressed before
winter arrived, and we had the tragicomic spectacle of birch trees in full
leaf covered in snow.
T Slater
What I do NOT advocate, but
which happens a lot, is this kind of attitude:
Hi Jerry,
I'm contending that it appears that Lomborg's book
is flawed (methodology & sources). Because of that we cannot make any
reasonable conclusions based upon it, as most proponents seem to be doing.
We just cannot rely on it. I'm not saying the environmental "doom
sayers" are right either. As you say regularly, we need more research
NOW before the worst case scenario overtakes us and it is too late. I
think the question is still open whether "global warming" is a
man made effect or just a natural fluctuation in the system.
I'm not a scientist or even a college graduate. I
rely on others who do know their fields to explain things to me. Taking
the pessimist view on this matter would seem to be prudent. Whistling in
the dark while plutocrats say "Move along, nothing to see here. We
are doing everything we need to do to keep the environment healthy. Trust
us.", does not make sense to me.
We know they lie all the time for a buck. Been to
Butte, Montana lately? http://www.edheritage.org/mont/buttim.htm
And yes, I realize it is an outrageous example, but similar has occured
many times all around the world to varying degrees.
Lomborg is a statistician, and we all know how
numbers can be manipulated and presented to people to buttress any
argument.
Thank you for your time, Best regards, Lee W.
Plaisted
"The sense organs, limited in scope and ability
Randomly gather information. This partial information is arranged into
judgements Which are based on previous judgements Which are usually based
on someone else's foolish ideas. These false concepts and ideas are then
stored in a highly selective memory system. Distortion upon
distortion--the more one uses the mind, the more confused one becomes.
--the Hua Hu ching, ch. 44
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry
Pournelle" <jerryp@jerrypournelle.com> To: "LWP" <lplaiste@
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 5:52 PM Subject: RE: Lomborg's book
analyzed.
> Are you contending that
the indicators are wrong? Or what? > > I see once again a lot
directed at Lomborg but damn all on the actual > discussion. > >
Are things getting worse or better? > > > >
-----Original Message----- > From: LWP [mailto:lplaiste > Sent:
Thursday, January 16, 2003 2:34 PM > To: Jerry Pournelle > Subject:
Lomborg's book analyzed. > > Dear Jerry, > > An interesting
analysis of Lomborg's book is here if you are interested. > > http://www.csicop.org/si/2002-11/environment.html
> > Best regards & > Scratch the pup's ears for me, > Lee
W. Plaisted > > > --- > > "Even in the valley of the
shadow of death, > two and two do not make six." > Leo Tolstoy
on his deathbed, > refusing to reconcile himself with the > Russian
Orthodox Church > > >
Which in essence rejects the notion of rational
debate and science for -- God knows what decision mechanism. Of course it
is precisely this attitude that Lomborg's enemies hope to promulgate. Then
the public will lose interest, the passionate advocates will have their
monopoly on legislative time, and the funds will begin to flow to the
Establishment Science groups again. Note that it is Fisher, whose work
Terry Cole has commented above, that generated this attitude. It is a
remarkably effective technique that the Skeptical Inquirer has chosen to
use.
The fact that numbers can be manipulated does not
mean there is no science; and that science can be manipulated for policy
reasons does not mean there is no scientific answer to public problems.
But trying to be rational is sometimes a difficult position, and it is
easier to throw up one's hands and say "they are all great
liars".
And then what do you do? In essence you abandon
the field to the lobbyists. Which is what Fisher and Scientific American
want. At least before doing that go to
http://www.greenspirit.com/lomborg/
and see what you find... Then
see below.
Roland has found this statement by my colleague
Orson Scott Card on the North Korea situation:
http://www.rhinotimes.com/greensboro/osc2.html
It's quite reasonable and a good summary.
TOP
CURRENT
VIEW |
CLICK HERE for
a Special Request. 
And
now a REAL VIRUS warning: