| Saturday,
October 25, 2003
AOL Turning off features for users:
If a 17 year old was caught doing this the FBI would
be on his case faster then white on rice.
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20031023/D7UC1P3G0.html
I am conflicted about this article because on one
hand I want to applaud AOL for fighting the people who do these annoying pseudo
popup messages. However at the same time I do not like the fact that they
went about doing this without asking the users permission.
Part of me also wonders if perhaps the only way to
have things improve will be to allow the creation of good viruses that
seek out insecure systems and fix them.
Down that path lies a slippery slope however. But
it's how the human body deals with infection (think white cells here).
- -Dan S.
I need to think about this one for a while.
The IRS paid out $30M in in fraudulent slavery
reparations claims. The largest claim: $507,490. How does something like
this happen?????
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/
articles/A9423-2003Oct23.html
"IRS officials say many fraudulent returns are
spotted because they claim an overpayment of $43,209 -- the amount
suggested in a 1993 Essence magazine article as the value of the mule and
40 acres some freed slaves were given."
Sue
I guess I hadn't realized the IRS was actually
paying claims for reparations. Wow.
I think the first maxim should be, first kill all
the professors . . . then the lawyers.
http://www.chalcedon.edu/articles/0310/031001duigon.shtml
Sue
But we were born free. (And I happen to know your
husband has a law degree as well as being an MD)
Subject: The Empire's website
www.freedom.gov
Sue
============
I don't normally think much of Asia Times pieces,
but this guy has a really good point on the legitimacy of the UN:
http://atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/EJ21Aa01.html
Ed
Indeed, this is a very good summary of the
history of sovereignty, and the US view which isn't the same. It leaves
out the fact that the States had established churches at the time of the
Constitution, and the First Amendment forbade Congress to interfere with
those, but that too was a compromise: we insisted that government derive
their just powers from the consent of the governed, and God knows the UN
doesn't...
We also had principles of de jure and de
facto recognition; for a very long time Senator Thomas Dodd of Connecticut
was Chairman of "The Committee of One Million Against the Recognition
of Red China" and the US held that the Republic of China (on Taiwan)
was the legitimate government of all of China; as we held that the USSR
was not the legitimate sovereign of the Baltic Republics.
But for a short essay this is quite good. Thanks.
(And see below)
Subject: The Perfect Solar
Storm, another demonstration of solar variability
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/23oct_superstorm.htm
===== -- John E. Bartley, III - K7AAY telcom admin,
Portland OR, USA - Views mine. palmwireless (dot) cjb (dot) net Wireless
FAQ for PalmOS(r)
This post is quad-ROT13 encrypted. Reading it
violates the DMCA. Dilbert is a documentary.
Global Warming, surely?
==============================
On Manufacturing Jobs
Quite a while ago I wrote a squib about loss of
manufacturing jobs. I got a reply which managed to get lost. It needs to
be posted.
"Jerry Pournelle" wrote: > We
have lost 5 million such in the past decade or so. Manufacturing > jobs
are precisely what we need: not only is the output hard goods, > things
and not paper and the stuff dreams and bubbles are made of, but > the
work is something that those skilled with their hands but not >
intellectuals can do.
5 million seems a bit of an exaggeration. What's
your source for this? According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there
was a decrease of 2.2 million manufacturing jobs from 1993 to last month.
All of that decline (actually, 136%) came during the current recession. ( ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt
) Graphs at http://home.nc.rr.com/kenhirsch/jobs1.htm
It seems you are conflating several different
things: the long term trend toward higher productivity, the long term
trend of more trade and the short term problem of the recession.
U.S. manufacturing output grew at a healthy pace
during the 1990s, growing 45% from 1990 to 2000, including an excellent
77% growth in durable goods output. Output has declined somewhat during
the current recession, but the drop is not because of a sudden surge in
imports. Imports of manufactured goods fell in 2001 and was flat in 2002.
(Table 954 of Statistical Abstract of the US, 2002 and http://www.ita.doc.gov/td/industry/otea/usfth/aggregate/H02T03.html
)
The manufacturing employment story is more
complicated. It fell 6.8% from 1989 to 1993, then rose slowly (4.7%) over
the next five years. It was basically level until mid-2000, then starting
in July, 2000 there have been 36 straight months of decline; almost 16% of
manufacturing jobs have been lost.
Although some of the losses since July 2000 are a
continuation of previous trends, many are of a completely different
character. There has been
(1) a huge decline in telecommunications, computers,
and other high-tech industries after the late-90's bubble
(2) a general decline in business investment
following the stock market decline of 2000
(3) some effects of 9/11 on aircraft and related
industries.
Comparing the 151 months up to July 2000 with the 20
months after July 2000 (which is what is is available in my source file ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/time.series/ee/ee.data.8.ManufactureAECurr
), I find:
Of the manufacturing job losses post-July 2000,
17.7% are in SIC sector 36 Electronic and other
electrical equipment From Jan 1988 through July 2000, employment in this
sector was roughly level (down 0.3%). From July 2000 to March 2003,
employment fell 23%.
16.7% are in SIC sector 35 Industrial machinery and
equipment From Jan 1988 through July 2000, employment in this sector was
up slightly (+3.9%). From July 2000 to March 2003, employment fell 18%.
10.6% are in SIC-22 and SIC-23 (Textiles and
Apparel, respectively) From Jan 1988 through July 2000, employment in this
sector fell sharply (36.5%) and fell another 21% since then.
9.1% are in SIC-37 Transportation equipment
SIC-371 Motor Vehicles & equipment accounted for
4.0% From Jan 1988 through July 2000, employment in this sector (371) grew
19.5% and fell 9.2% from July 2000 through March 2003.
SIC-372 Aircraft and parts accounted for 3.6% From
Jan 1988 through July 2000, employment in this sector (372) fell 32%. It
fell another 18% since then.
7.2% in SIC-34 Fabricated metal products From Jan
1988 through July 2000, employment in this sector grew 9.5%. It fell 10.7%
since then.
6.9% in SIC-27 Printing and publishing From Jan 1988
through July 2000, employment in this sector grew slowly (1.6%). From July
2000 through Mar 2003, employment fell 10.2%
5.5% in SIC-33 Primary metal industries From Jan
1988 through July 2000, employment in this sector fell 8.3%. It fell 17.9%
since then.
That's 3/4 of the job losses. The other 1/4 are
split among the other dozen categories.
For a couple of ways of looking at the data, see
http://home.nc.rr.com/kenhirsch/jobs2.htm
He is, I am sure, correct, and some of my concern
is exaggerated. On the other hand, I remain concerned about the shift from
making things to thinking about things: intellectual work is more easily
exported than manufacturing, witness that you now get connected to Bombay
when you ask for local telephone information or help with your computer.
Mostly I continue to say: half the population is
below average in intelligence. This is obvious, but we don't seem to think
about what that means.
There need to be jobs for all, not just those
clever with words and thoughts. There needs to be a place for care and
craftsmanship. I am not sure that is where we are headed.
======================================
While I am putting up
arguments, here is one on the War On Drugs from another conference:
I've watched bad management and bad decisions made
by technical workers destroy value on a mind-boggling scale. You seem to
assume that a worker with, say, half as much capability would just produce
half as much wealth. But its a competitive world out there. Unless a
company executes a wise strategy and does its various tasks well it can
turn into an also ran and the profit for being in, say, 5th place can be
nil or zero.
As for the costs of drug addiction vs the costs of
the war on drugs: that's a really hard calculation to make. But I start
from the position that one of society's biggest needs is for as many
people as possible to be competent to manage themselves and to function
and that we need to incur various costs to try to make that happen as much
as possible. I'm skeptical of arguments that the costs of the War On Drugs
are greater than the costs of legalization. I don't think that the people
making those calculations are accounting for all the costs of legalization
because they assume a well functioning society. Its a typical false
libertarian simplifying assumption.
R
=See below
==================
On Blondes and stereotypes:
<<1) Are the blondes the ones winning the
prizes?>>
I don't see where that would matter. The people
winning the prizes are almost exclusively male. And there is no "dumb
blonde" stereotype for males. I do think the stereotype (as it
applies to females) might have a basis in fact, however. It's hard to sell
stereotypes if they don't.
I suspect the problem here may be a failure to
distinguish between light and dark blondes. Very few adult males are light
blonde. Blonde males who have reached puberty are almost always
"dirty" blonde, or for survey purposes "dark blonde."
I don't have any reason to hypothesize that dark
blonde females are on average less intelligent that other white females.
But whatthehell, let me tell you a little story about the light blondes.
Once, during one of those moments when I was fed up
to my keister with political correctness, I decided to do a little inquiry
into whether certain stereotypes might be true. And so naturally I looked
at this one. I ran the means by hair color of white females in the NLSY.
And found that the average for the light blonde group was in fact lower
than for the others.
I have to caution that the numbers were not large.
As I recall only about 50 light blondes in the sample. Lots of dirty
blondes and other hair colors. Unfortunately I don't have this stuff on my
computer right now so I can't give you anything more specific. Of the top
of my head I think the difference was on the order of 5 percentile points
between light blondes and the rest.
Also for my own research I focused on females who
were in the top 10% for both mathematical and mechanical giftedness. Dirty
blondes were well represented relative to their numbers in the total
sample of white females. But there was not one light blonde or redhead
(sorry Ralph). Here the small numbers were even more of a problem since
only about 50-odd women out of about 6000 made the high math high mech
group. Light blondes and redheads were around 3.5% I think of all NLSY
white females. But 0% of the high math/mechanical group.
I would hypothesize that the governing mechanism is
testosterone related. Light blonde hair should reflect lower T exposure by
virtue of the hormone's effect on hair color. For effect of relative
levels of sex hormones on cognitive abilities I refer you to Helmuth's
magnum opus, Hormones Sex & Society.
I will add two final thoughts. The first is that
more research is needed. The second is that it will never happen.
Patti
---------------------
On the Foreign Service:
Jerry P:
The posting about April Haspie is interesting but I
assume many of us who read your site do not know who she is or was. As you
do not provide any reference possibly you would enlighten us. If an
ambassador delivers an erroneous message to a head of state, the President
would surely correct the message as soon as possible and would do
something about the officer who did not perform as ordered. So I would
assume that Bush senior did just that. As you seem to be privy to
communications between the president and his ambassadors, would you
provide us with the communications between the president and the
ambassador, who I assume from your message was named April Haspie. Rather
than demean all FSOs you should realize that there might be one or two
with some notion of diplomacy and professionalism.
Charles Simkins
Thank you for reminding me to be a bit more
sparing with the tar brush.
The Foreign Service has provided a number of
intelligent people even at ambassadorial rank; but when it insisted that
it be given a fairly large proportion of those posts, rather than leaving
such matters to the President, the argument was that they would better
represent the interests of the US because of their professional
credentials and experience.
In some matters, particularly those of technical
nature, that might be true although the old system of political appointees
advised by professionals worked pretty well even in those cases. But in
some cases, the lack of direct contact and access between the ambassador,
who is supposed to be the representative of the President, and the foreign
head of state can be a disaster. This was one of those cases.
The Glaspie/Saddam Hussein communication isn't
any secret. You can find copies on the web. It was diplomatic. (And yes, I
misspelled her name, and apologies.)
The problem was, diplomacy wasn't really needed
then. What was needed was a fairly strong statement: Don't go into Kuwait,
it will not be allowed to stand. Yes, we supported you in your war with
Iran, and while we aren't endorsing your regime, we understand the need
for a balance of power in the Region. But don't go too far. We may need
you but we don't need you that much.
A political crony of the president could say such
a thing. A professional diplomat could not. She was in over her head here:
but so would any professional diplomat be. What was needed was someone
close to the President who could get him on the phone and say "Mr.
President [even close friends don't usually call the President by his
first name: as the Speaker said the night before his swearing in, 'This is
the last time I can call you Harry...'] Mr. President, this guy really is
going into Kuwait. He's using it as a bargaining chip: he wants help
against Iraq and control of that waterway that the Shah took away from
him, and if he doesn't see some progress going on there he will probably
hit Kuwait. If we're going to talk him out of it we'll have to be
blunt."
That may or may not have done the job; but it
might have. What Glaspie said could be construed as permission to take the
runaway province (that's how Iraq, from the days of the monarchy on, has always regarded Kuwait). Some have made a big conspiracy out of that. I don't. I
think she was just talking standard State Department professional
diplomacy language.
The State Department has always had its own
policies, most of them at odds with Republican Secretaries of State.
Requiring by law that a percentage of them get rewarded with ambassador
posts is an odd interference in the power of the President to conduct
foreign policy.
I will withdraw some of the more intemperate
language; but not the sentiment that the President ought not be hampered
by the requirement that not only all the ambassador's staff, but the
ambassador as well, be drawn from "career professionals". That
was an experiment that hasn't worked well and should be abandoned.
=========================
Dear Jerry,
I was reading about the Liberty affair at http://www.usni.org/proceedings/Articles03/PROwalsh06.htm
and wondered what you thought.
DJ
I once asked General Graham his views on this and
he wouldn't tell me, but it was clear he wasn't happy about it. It's hard
to come up with a motive for the Israelis deliberately to attack a US
ship. On the other hand the survivors are unanimous in their belief that
the Israelis must have seen the big holiday flag they put up, and recently
the US investigators have said they were ordered to report it was an
accident when they had concluded otherwise.
http://home.cfl.rr.com/gidusko/liberty/
It happened a long time ago. I was appalled to
discover the Israelis have what amounts to a laudatory shrine to the
people who made the attack.
TOP
CURRENT
VIEW |
CLICK HERE for
a Special Request. 
