Infinite Monkey Theorems

Things worth reading…   

or at least pondering and forgetting quickly… 

So… how good is China’s new stealth fighter?  Not sure, but I’d start by asking this guy(here via MSNBC): 

HONOLULU — A former B-2 stealth bomber engineer was sentenced to 32 years in prison Monday for selling military secrets to China in the latest of several high-profile cases of Chinese espionage in the U.S.

US economics…

Businesses have not yet started hiring as UE claims are up.  Some of it is due to delays due to weather were people who would’ve claimed last week didn’t, but still not a good sign (here via BizTimes.com):

New applications for U.S. jobless benefits jumped by 51,000 to 454,000 last week, the U.S. Labor Department reported today, up from 403,000 during the previous week….

The four-week average of new claims, climbed 15,750 to 428,750, the highest level in two months, the Labor Department said. 

Additionally, the CBO reported this week, what all politicians have known for decades, but have consistently ignored…. social security is a looming and ever-growing problem (here via EpochTimes): 

In its Budget and Economic Outlook report for fiscal years 2011 to 2021, the CBO anticipates that the Social Security program will run a $45 billion deficit for 2011, and will be in the red for at least the next ten years. 

And…

According to the Associated Press, if present Social Security spending and funding levels are sustained and adjusted for the coming influx of Baby Boomers applying for and collecting Social Security checks, the program’s trust fund could be emptied by about 2037.

President Obama’s thoughts about this re: State of the union speech… no problems at all… full remarks here:

Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years.  (Applause.)  Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected.

Not “affected’?  I guess that doesn’t discount it from affecting us…. but why worry about that when we can spend more money on things we don’t need (speech cont’d):

Next, we can put Americans to work today building the infrastructure of tomorrow.  From the first railroads to the Interstate Highway System, our nation has always been built to compete.  There’s no reason Europe or China should have the fastest trains, or the new factories that manufacture clean energy products.

Tomorrow, I’ll visit Tampa, Florida, where workers will soon break ground on a new high-speed railroad funded by the Recovery Act.

That’s some vision there; to ignore the looming crisis and instead deflect to a new boondoggle.  & not just a boondoggle, but it seems this is the answer to so many of life’s troubles… the environment, traffic congestion, sprawl…. yes, this magical elixir that is so incredibly great, that it can’t possibly survive without federal government to operate.

But wait… it will create jobs!  (speech cont’d):

There are projects like that all across this country that will create jobs and help move our nation’s goods, services, and information. 

Of course if it’s a “jobs’ program” and not a new transportation program (look over here – shiny stuff)… well, let’s let Milton Friedman discuss jobs’ programs (here):

Milton recalled traveling to an Asian country in the 1960s and visiting a worksite where a new canal was being built. He was shocked to see that, instead of modern tractors and earth movers, the workers had shovels. He asked why there were so few machines. The government bureaucrat explained: ‘You don’t understand. This is a jobs program.’ To which Milton replied: ‘Oh, I thought you were trying to build a canal. If it’s jobs you want, then you should give these workers spoons, not shovels.’

Either way, here is a good response to the State of the Union from Cato.

Lastly, more great stuff from the Economist.  This time an Ideas Arena

As business leaders, politicians and journalists meet at the World Economic Forum’s annual summit in Davos to discuss the year ahead, The Economist will be inviting readers and guests to participate in a series of online debates questioning the future of global leadership. From now until February 18th, we’ll be examining the rapid emergence of a single global elite whose decisions, and opinions, affect us all.

In usual fashion of course, his framework is built on faulty assumptions, each which help his argument out a great deal, but all of which prove the fallacy of his thinking (full article here via NY Times):

One side of American politics considers the modern welfare state — a private-enterprise economy, but one in which society’s winners are taxed to pay for a social safety net — morally superior to the capitalism red in tooth and claw we had before the New Deal. It’s only right, this side believes, for the affluent to help the less fortunate.

Well, we can stop here, because the New Deal did not magically arrive at a philisohpical moral imperative which has been around for centuries.  Sorry Mr. Krugman, but morals are actually shared by most humans and this one is included regardless of your self-serving ability to not see it.

No, this novel concept didn’t begin in the 1930′s.  Most of us probably know or have heard the axiom, when much is given, much is expected.  Or this one, the idea that a rich person’s trip to Heaven is analogous to threading a camel through the eye of a needle (historically this meant using smaller entrances to walled cities, not actually a needle and thread).

But no matter, as for Mr. Krugman, the New Deal is the beginning of it all….. So where to go from here?  How about a false dichotomy (article cont’d):

The other side believes that people have a right to keep what they earn, and that taxing them to support others, no matter how needy, amounts to theft…

Notice the word play here in these back to back statements.  He sets up the framework as side A against side B, and while he doesn’t actually state that side B believes the less fortunate should fend for themselves, the implication in the setup is that this is the case.

Moving to his point however, I will admit in Libertarian circles and I’m sure other political idealogies taxation equals theft is a strongly held belief.  Unlike Mr. Krugman however, I can see that this strongly held belief is a minority opinion and not representative of the “other side.”  Try as he might, acting as if the two are equal won’t make it so.  Only by painting the entire opposition with the outlying views of a small percentage can he offer such a false choice.

But I digress, the true dichotomy of the average citizen isn’t a belief in the welfare state as being more moral than the other side’s dog eat dog world.  It’s really a question of degree since we nominally agree you can measure a society based upon how they treat the least fortunate among them.

The difference isn’t moral, it’s in how we get there, with the real dichotomy being:

Both sides agree that they don’t want people to die from lack of nececessities in such a rich country.

One side believes through use of government, fewer freedoms, and higher taxes the less fortunate will be helped more so than through the other side’s plan: lower taxes and more freedom.  One side believes it’s better for local charties to take on these responsbilities, the other side thinks this is a naive view of the world.

But when you’re entire point is to prove to everyone how perfectly moral you are, then it’s helpful to use anything you can to call your opponents immoral.

& besides, without that setup, he couldn’t have painted his opponents as violent, all while claiming the mantle of civility (article cont’d):

That’s what lies behind the modern right’s fondness for violent rhetoric: many activists on the right really do see taxes and regulation as tyrannical impositions on their liberty….

Too bad it’s all based upon a faulty assumption of the modern right, but put together, it sums up his world view quit nicely: His side is full of morality and civility, which includes utopian visions of free healthcare, the other side is against affluent people spending their wealth on anyone other than themselves and are pro-violent rhetoric.

If you ever find yourself in such an enviable position as Mr. Krugman’s, where you are absolutely sure that everything you’re doing is moral and everything the other side is doing is immoral, it’s probably time to check your premises; perferabbly outside of your echo chamber.

When you’re Mr. Krugman however, you simply write it down and argue it as fact.

CAIRO — Egypt’s Al-Azhar, the most prestigious centre of religious learning in the Sunni Muslim world, said on Tuesday that Islam bans suicide for any reason.

“Sharia law states that Islam categorically forbids suicide for any reason and does not accept the separation of souls from bodies as an expression of stress, anger or protest,” said Al-Azhar’s spokesman Mohammed Rifa al-Tahtawi in a statement on state news agency MENA.

“Al-Azhar cannot comment on the cases of people who had burned themselves, as these may be suffering from a mental or psychological condition that forced them to do so,” he said.

It might seem odd to some, but the Muslim scholars are actively pushing an idea which devalues the Islamic terrorists’ main weapon, suicide bombings.  & they do so in a very definitive way.  Even though the escape hatch of narrowly aiming their critiques to only self-immolation is obvious, they still don’t speak in political terms or try to limit themselves to suicide by fire.

Instead of taking the easy path; they took the moral one and stated directly that suicide in any form is forbidden under Islam and recent attacks may well involve psychological issues.

Which interestingly enough, brings us back to the Arizona shooting debate (DA post here) where I argue that rhetoric or guns can’t cause a free and moral people to suddenly and irrationally take up arms.  Indeed by proffering so, people are ignoring the fact that America, as well as many other semi-free countries, has a culture whereby the vast majority agree that killing is not an appropriate reaction to someone else exercising their free speech (agree vocally & through our legal system).

I juxtaposed American culture against some religious fundamentalist examples.  One, the Muslim online magazine (Inspire), which in mid-2010 was still pushing for revenge against Danish media for daring to print Mohammed cartoons.  Not only pushing, but the cleric writing the article stated (paraphrased) assassinations, bombings, killings, etc, are all valid responses to religious “slander”.  Additionally, I used the recent assassination of a provincial governor in Pakistan in which clerics (500+) issued decrees that anyone caught grieving for the slain governor can be punished.

The governor’s sin?  Agreeing with the national government of Pakistan that blasphemy laws currently on the books should be repealed.

Both are examples of a different a culture where killing in response to slander or blasphemy (both forms of speech) is acceptable.  Therefore, a culture in which vitriol about the blood of patriots or having to get your pitchforks out means something entirely different than it means in America.

So much in the same way that America isn’t culturally like a lot of Pakistan when it comes to the belief that violence is a respectable tool in almost any case, neither is Egypt.  As Egypt also has a societal belief, proven in their laws and willingness to prosecute terrorists, that terrorism and suicide bombings are not the way to make political points.

In the hearts and minds game, Egypt progressed past its beginnings to reach this point.  It has to be noted that Egypt worked hard at this and came about it only after many years, through the force of a moderate leader who was assassinated. (side story:  UN investigation into Hezbollah’s <funded by Iran> hand in the assassination is what brought down the Lebanese government) Culture is after all a generational problem (or benefit).

To see the full context, Stratfor’s piece on Egypt written in light of recent terrorist attacks within Egypt by Muslims against Christians is an excellent resource.  Stratfor starts by providing context, detailing Egypt’s ruthless efficiency for dealing with terrorists, even after President Anwar Sadat’s assassination in 1981.  Giving an underpinning to the reason why the terrorist attacks in Egypt deserve special attention; Egypt is entering a time of leadership change.  Therefore the two sides of Egypt, the more liberal side (liberal for the Middle East that is) against the Islamists (read entire piece here):

What is clear, however, is that the attack on a church in one country — Egypt — is far from common and was particularly destructive. Egypt has been relatively quiet in terms of terrorism, and there have been few recent attacks on the large Coptic Christian population. The Egyptian government has been effective in ruthlessly suppressing Islamist extremists and has been active in sharing intelligence on terrorism with American, Israeli and other Muslim governments. Its intelligence apparatus has been one of the mainstays of global efforts to limit terrorism as well as keep Egypt’s domestic opposition in check.

This time up, it’s Representative Peter King of NY.  Not to be outdone by Paul Krugman’s idiocy, Mr. King is trying to parlay one lone gunmen into a brand new set of gun control laws (here):

Rep. Peter King (R-NY) called for the gun-free zone in the immediate vicinity of federal officials…. he planned to introduce legislation next week incorporating his proposal….

It should seem obvious that this legislation has little chance of preventing or even acting as a deterrent to another such terrorist act, but not surprising the legislation is being pushed anyway.

As is usual with any legislation, it existed prior to the ‘crisis’ which was used as reasoning to pass it right now.  Truly the only way in which this is related to the Arizona shooting at all is in timing (article cont’d):

But many lawmakers have been concerned about the safety of themselves and their aides since Saturday’s shootings in Tucson and might be more open to King’s proposal than they would have been a week ago.

In a more perfect world, maybe we could point to this as the exception of a reasoned public debate, unfortunately this is just one of the idiotic ideas being pushed.

Their commonality?  Almost all arguments brought to the public so far ignore the very essence of a society: its culture.

Which is insulting to a degree; to think that given the wrong language or opportunity to carry a weapon near any sacred politicians, the average citizen might well use violence as a standard debate tactic.  However in America, and indeed most civilized societies, a basic thought is held by the vast majority of citizens is that the proper response to speech is speech.

For instance, we all know exactly what it means to say “sticks and stones” and as a society, we have a pretty firm belief that no matter what someone says to you, no matter how disgusting, no matter how insulting, violence is never an appropriate response to words.

To juxtapose, let’s look at the Islamists.

Their  religious and moral leaders constantly tell followers that violence is an appropriate solution to perceived or real slights.  They argue not just that violence is an answer, but specifically that it is a respectable solution even when it’s being used against those who are only using speech.

Remember the Mohammed cartoons?  That was 2005, but even in mid-2010 a Islamist religious leader was still pushing the idea of killing as a punishment against those exercising free speech (from Stratfor here):

In July 2010, AQAP released the first edition of its English-language magazine Inspire. One of the articles in that issue was written by the American-born Yemeni cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who wrote, “If you have the right to slander the Messenger of Allah, we have the right to defend him. If it is part of your freedom of speech to defame Muhammad it is part of our religion to fight you.” He added: “Assassinations, bombings, and acts of arson are all legitimate forms of revenge against a system that relishes the sacrilege of Islam in the name of freedom.”

Additionally, the Pakistani clerics’ warnings after the assassination of a regional governor killed due to his support for repealing blasphemy laws (here via Rueters):

“More than 500 scholars of the Jamaat-e-Ahl-e-Sunnat have advised Muslims not to offer the funeral prayers of Governor Punjab Salman Taseer nor try to lead the prayers,” the group said in a statement.

“Also, there should be no expression of grief or sympathy on the death of the governor, as those who support blasphemy of the Prophet are themselves indulging in blasphemy.”

So whether you hear others calling all your opponents rhetoric vitriol as Mr. Krugman chose to do, or calling for irrelevant legislation like Mr. King, or like Mr. Boehner and many, many others, just calling for more civility based upon this incident, know each idea misses the basic point.

We are already adults and already know how to disagree without violence.

Other societies however, whose culture and moral leaders tell them that assassinations and suicide bombings are perfectly acceptable forms of retaliation in response to “religious slander” (note slander means speech)…. well then. Talk of being armed or getting your pitchforks could have an entirely different result.

Puzzling in that I’m not sure what the argument would be, when the blogosphere is the definition of an open forum.  So I read further to find out that Freddie began the argument:

There are many myths within the political blogosphere, but none is so deeply troubling or so highly treasured by mainstream political bloggers than this: that the political blogosphere contains within it the whole range of respectable political opinion, and that once an issue has been thoroughly debated therein, it has had a full and fair hearing.

Um… okay.  I don’t know that I’ve ever heard anyone assert this “myth” before, don’t know anyone who believes it, and certainly don’t know anyone advocating it strongly.

I have heard several arguments along the lines of, the increase in the blogosphere has increased the number of views overall, but nothing like “media reports, blogosphere decide”.  In fact, many of those arguing that the blogosphere has increased the number of voices don’t agree that this has been a good thing, nor that it’s in any way equal in presentation of all ideas.   Just that it can help and has increased the total number of ideas available.

But I digress… the more puzzling part is this:

The truth is that almost anything resembling an actual left wing has been systematically written out of the conversation within the political blogosphere, both intentionally and not, while those writing within it congratulate themselves for having answered all left-wing criticism.

Puzzling because the one thing the blogosphere is above all else: a free market.  Yes, it’s not completely free as costs do exist, but costs for bloggers have been decreasing dramatically over time and are close to being zero from a casual level.

Now to maintain a consistent blog of course takes time and additional money, but thanks to aggregating sites, search engines, social networking channels, and a number of other technologies, getting a blog post in front of 1000 people isn’t all that hard (getting 100 to read on the other hand….) and the costs for doing so can be minimized to only include the cost of the internet connection itself.  All these other products can be used for free.

Of course larger operations can afford advertising, preferential search engine listings, possibly advertising revenue to the point of having a staff, as well as other advantages, but in the marketplace of ideas – the NY Times’ or Freddie’s or my opinion on say, health care reform (assuming they are all different), all stand on equal ground.

True, the NY Times’ opinion on health care reform will likely be given an air of credibility, that potentially isn’t given to the standard blogger, but the basic message rises and falls on the ideas presented.  This truly is a marketplace of ideas, where the wisdom of crowds can show itself.

& I’ve made a point before of this meme about the increased number of views and whether the average person is really taking advantage (here):

In a world with the internet with all it’s free content, differing view points, ability to look at multiple sources instantly (thanks to search engines), and really, the ability for people to truly become informed, it appears that most of us, like Bill [Maher], only seek out people who agree with us and help us prove our own presumptions….

But none of this seems to be Freddie’s point.  His view as stated is:

That the blogosphere is a flagrantly anti-leftist space should be clear to anyone who has paid a remote amount of attention.

Which amounts to little more than a having temper tantrum, while repetitively screaming, “You’re not paying attention to me!  You’re not paying attention to me!”