"Then they went back to work and finished founding the new Republic."
The rest is here.
It is really stunning how bad on economics a lot of these candidates are. The best is Duncan Hunter saying we should "buy American" this Christmas season to create jobs. And Giuliani and Romney both refused to take up a questioner who wanted them to end federal subsidies for agriculture, because we need to ensure a domestic food supply.
What's funny is, most of the candidates were posturing about how they were going to use the federal government to crack down on the flow of illegal immigrants. So we're worried about foreigners sneaking in illegally, and we're also worried about us not being able to import food legally. Makes sense.
I do have to say I was impressed with McCain on illegal immigrants--reminding everyone that they are God's children too--and with Huckabee on the literal interpretation of the Bible. As far as the latter point, that just shows how ridiculous it is that we want to elect someone who can be an "expert" on 973 different topics. Huckabee is a minister and so he gave the best answer on that question. It doesn't mean he's qualified to conduct foreign policy, influence taxes, deal with immigration, blah blah blah.
(Note: All of these things come from Part I of the transcript, if you want to see for yourself.)
"Finally, the 3.0 agenda aims to get a law passed to let Ba’ath Party members back into government jobs. “This last goal was described by a senior Bush administration official as largely symbolic, since rehirings have been quietly taking place already without a law,” the Times reports."
So now one of our war aims is to re-install the government we went to war to expel!
Now, my answer would have been "What the hell business is it of yours?"
Huckabee said, "I believe that the Bible is exactly what it is."
I guess he's holding some sort of Tarskian theory of truth, whereby "It is raining out" is true whenever it is the case that it is raining out. (Which I've found to be the least helpful philosophical truth ever propounded.)
"The greatest blown opportunity in recent political history[?] I'd have gone with Clinton's chance to take out al Qaeda right after the 1998 embassy bombings — which would have been good for the country, won the 2000 election for Gore, and spared us the Cole bombing and 9/11."
But of course, at that time, anytime Clinton acted against al Qaeda, the right screamed "He's just distracting the people from Monica! Wag the dog! Wag the dog!"
Douglas A. Johnson premises his letter to the editor on Nov. 12 on the factual assertion that I am "passionately promoting the use of torture." Did he not even bother to read the column to which he was responding in which I stated unequivocally that "I am personally opposed to the use of torture." [sic on punctuation--Bob] This assertion runs through all of my writing about torture. Being the head of a do-gooder organization does not give one a license to make up the facts.
ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
Wow, them are some strong words. Let me take some excerpts from the original WSJ piece--a forum not known for its hostility to aggressive interrogation techniques, mind you--to shed some light for the perplexed Dershowitz:
==> Most Americans...want a president who will be strong, as well as smart, on national security, and who will do everything in his or her lawful power to prevent further acts of terrorism.
==> Hundreds of thousands of Americans may watch Michael Moore's movies or cheer Cindy Sheehan's demonstrations, but tens of millions want the Moores and Sheehans of our nation as far away as possible from influencing national security policy.
==> I am not suggesting that Democratic candidates seek to emulate Mr. Giuliani. But they cannot ignore his tough stance on national security if they want to succeed in the 2008 election...
==> I am not now talking about the routine use of torture in interrogation of suspects or the humiliating misuse of sexual taunting that infamously occurred at Abu Ghraib. I am talking about that rare situation described by former President Clinton in an interview with National Public Radio...
==> Although I am personally opposed to the use of torture, I have no doubt that any president--indeed any leader of a democratic nation--would in fact authorize some forms of torture against a captured terrorist if he believed that this was the only way of securing information necessary to prevent an imminent mass casualty attack.
==> There are some who claim that torture is a nonissue because it never works--it only produces false information. This is simply not true, as evidenced by the many decent members of the French Resistance who, under Nazi torture, disclosed the locations of their closest friends and relatives.
==> Michael Mukasey...is absolutely correct, as a matter of constitutional law, that the issue of "waterboarding" cannot be decided in the abstract. Under prevailing precedents--some of which I disagree with--the court must examine the nature of the governmental interest at stake, and the degree to which the government actions at issue shock the conscience, and then decide on a case-by-case basis. In several cases involving actions at least as severe as waterboarding, courts have found no violations of due process.
==> The members of the judiciary committee who voted against Judge Mukasey, because of his unwillingness to support an absolute prohibition on waterboarding and all other forms of torture, should be asked the direct question: Would you authorize the use of waterboarding, or other non-lethal forms of torture, if you believed that it was the only possible way of saving the lives of hundreds of Americans in a situation of the kind faced by Israeli authorities on the eve of Yom Kippur?... If not, would you be prepared to accept responsibility for the preventable deaths of hundreds of Americans?
I think the above quotes make it clear why Johnson "misunderstood" Dershowitz. Apparently Dershowitz is personally opposed to the use of torture, but hopes that people in government who can actually order torture don't share his impractical moral scruples.
…, 1010, 1011, 1000, 1001, 1110, 1111, 1100, 1101, 10, 11, 0, 1, 110, 111, 100, 101, 11010, 11011, 11000, 11001, 11110, ...
.. No other digits ==> binary
.. Context free ==> “0” is always 0, “1” is always 1 ==> no minus sign even for negative integers
.. Extrapolation, and considering that log2(21) = 4+ suggests a unique total unsigned representation
.. Pairs, e.g. “0” “1”, “110” “111”, suggest radix or at least some kind of positional notation
.. Aha: radix, base -2
.. In I.V. II, I mentioned, “Arithmetic? Looks dicey, but simple algorithms must exist, because indeed this is a familiar radix system (successive positions indicate successive powers of the so-called base).” Well, I know you have been slavering over that ever since (unless you worked it out for yourself). Subtraction is just a dialect of addition, really, and for the sake of brevity we shall pass over division in blessed silence; so that leaves addition and multiplication. The algorithm is the same for any radix: add digitwise with carry; multiply digitwise, aligning the partial products with the digits of the multiplier, and add them. These operations require tables of addition and multiplication for single digits—and that is really the only difference between different bases. And multiplication’s table is the same for the corresponding portion of the table for any base:
..... x : 0 1
..... 0 : 0 0
..... 1 : 0 1
.. So, really, it’s all about addition. And here is something new: using this addition table
..... + : 0 1
..... 0 : 0 1
..... 1 : 1 110
try adding 11 + 1. The algorithm breaks down, with infinite recursion. Here is the minimal addition table required for base -2:
..... + : 0 1 11
..... 0 : 0 1
..... 1 : 1 110 0
..... 11 : 0
....... 10 (-2) .. 10 (-2) .. 11001 (+9) ..... 11001 (+9)
..... + 11 (-1) .x 11 (-1) . + 1110 (-6) .... x 1110 (-6)
..... --------- .--------- . ----------- .... -----------
..... 1101 (-3) .. 10 ....... 00111 (+3) .... 11001
................. 10 ....................... 11001
.................--------- ................ 11001
................. 110 (+2) ................ --------------
........................................... 11011110 (-54)
.. OK, does base -8 relate to base -2 the way octal relates to binary? Sure.
.... (-2) (-8)
.... 010 . -2 written “X”
.... 011 . -1 written “Y”
.... 000 . 0 same as “Z” (to help you remember “X” and “Y”)
.... 001 . 1
.... 110 . 2
.... 111 . 3
.... 100 . 4
.... 101 . 5
.. Our version of “negoctal” uses the digits -2,…,5 (eight in all).
Example: 11,011,110 (base -2) = YY2 (base -8) = -54 (decimal).
.. Here are the addition and multiplication tables for base -8:
.... + : X Y 0 1 2 3 4 5
.... X :14 15 X Y 0 1 2 3
.... Y :15 X Y 0 1 2 3 4
.... 0 : X Y 0 1 2 3 4 5
.... 1 : Y 0 1 2 3 4 5 YX
.... 2 : 0 1 2 3 4 5 YX YY
.... 3 : 1 2 3 4 5 YX YY Y0
.... 4 : 2 3 4 5 YX YY Y0 Y1
.... 5 : 3 4 5 YX YY Y0 Y1 Y2
.... x : X Y 0 1 2 3 4 5
.... X : 4 2 0 X 14 12 10 1X
.... Y : 2 1 0 Y X 15 14 13
.... 0 : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.... 1 : X Y 0 1 2 3 4 5
.... 2 :14 X 0 2 4 YX Y0 Y2
.... 3 :12 15 0 3 YX Y1 Y4 XY
.... 4 :10 14 0 4 Y0 Y4 X0 X4
.... 5 :1X 13 0 5 Y2 XY X4 151
.. Note that 5x5 is three digits long.
.. There is no end to this silliness. Here are some central integers (from -20 (decimal) to +20 (decimal)) in base -3, using the digits -1 written “Y”, 0, and 1 (note the antisymmetry around 0):
…, 1111, 110Y, 1100, 1101, 11YY, 11Y0, 11Y1, Y1Y, Y10, Y11, Y0Y, Y00, Y01, YYY, YY0, YY1, 1Y, 10, 11, Y, 0, 1, YY, Y0, Y1, 11Y, 110, 111, 10Y, 100, 101, 1YY, 1Y0, 1Y1, YY1Y, YY10, YY11, YY0Y, YY00, YY01, YYYY, …
Well, there you have it.
What's really amazing is that they're both basically reporting the same flow of events, but the latter story wouldn't alarm most people. "Oh sure, there were technically fines and jail time, but c'mon, it was for the kids, and nobody was really going to throw parents in jail. That was just to get them to comply."
BAGHDAD - Iraq's government, seeking protection against foreign threats and internal coups, will offer the U.S. a long-term troop presence in Iraq in return for U.S. security guarantees as part of a strategic partnership, two Iraqi officials said Monday.
So it's not a conspiracy theory, it's now front page news, that the current people running Iraq would not be able to maintain their rule without US troops. When other countries do this, it's usually called a "puppet government."
And isn't it a rather odd "deal"? "Okay, tell you what. If you agree to provide us with security, we agree to let your troops stay here and provide security."
It's almost as if the US government likes to have its troops stationed around the world...
And seriously, what's the deal with the laughing? Is he amused because of Wallace's "backward" charges? I.e. is Giuliani thinking, "This is a riot! My chief advisor urges me to place the command center in lower Manhattan, and now I'm being criticized for that decision! Heh!"
Man, I just hate arguments like this. I have no idea if the idea of a Paul blimp is sensible or not. But, look, it's based on a tested advertising idea that many corporations apparently feel seems to work. So it's certainly not patently stupid, like the kangaroo notion. The thing is, for people who are too dull or lazy to examine the analogy, a "pundit" like Linkins can do this with anything: "Clinton supporters plan to buy ads on billboards! Oooh, why don't they just buy signs on the sides of atoms and advertise there?'
"Life is just a meaningless coincidence... result of long process of evolution and many several factors, causes and effects. However, life is also something that an individual wants and determines it to be. And I'm the dictator and god of my own life. And me, I have chosen my way. I am prepared to fight and die for my cause. I, as a natural selector, will eliminate all who I see unfit, disgraces of human race and failures of natural selection. "
From the Finnish school shooter who recently killed eight people.
Do you remember when you did this? When you voluntarily "gave up" some of your rights as part of your "effort to prevent future strikes"? That's funny -- I don't either!
UPDATE: The point here was don't privatize the commons through one of these shite schemes where some state pretends its the owner and then auctions off the commons, which is snatched up by some large statist corporation, which sells the right to fish there to the current users who really already own it.
"Singer himself gives 20% of his Princeton professor salary to nonprofits, principally Oxfam. To lead an even minimally moral life, he argues, we’re all obligated to give at least that much."
Wow! What a coincidence! The absolute minimum that anyone can give to charity and still be considered morally decent just happens to be exactly the amount Singer himself gives! Man, did he luck out! Cause, you know, just 1% less and he would have had to condemn himself.
So how did he arrive at that figure? From one of his "two overarching principles": "If we can prevent something bad without sacrificing anything of comparable significance, we ought to do it.” It's not right, he claims, for Americans to enjoy luxuries while others starve.
You know what? Eighty percent of the salary of a tenured full professor at Princeton plus book royalties still buys a whole lot of luxuries. Singer's "principle," which he has no intention whatsoever of living by, requires him to give about 99% of his income away. I'll tell you how he arrived at the 20% figure: it's a higher amount than given by anyone he is likely to run into at a coktail party, so that he can demonstrate his moral superiority to them but not be inconvenienced too much.
I know full well that in most sensible intertemporal models the U.S. dollar is overvalued and must fall further to set right the trade balance. But these same intertemporal models don't explain business cycles or unemployment very well (they do at times, but that's it), so why should they explain currency values? Nor do these same macro models command the full loyalty of Krugman and other pessimists in different settings.
I do know that purchasing power parity predicts long swings in exchange rates to some crude extent, and right now I'm dead set against family summer vacation in Europe. So I will accept this dare and assert that the U.S. dollar is undervalued in world currency markets.
Now, as I understand the above, Tyler's argument boils down to his blind intuition that the dollar is undervalued. He says that the same economists who are predicting a downward trend in the dollar are using macro-economic models that don't explain the business cycle, and therefore why should they have any relevance to an analysis of the dollar? That's fair enough, I suppose, but there as at least one economist, Austrian Tyler Cowen, whose analysis is grounded in general models of the business cycle. His model appears to have had some recent predictive success.
Time may of course shed more light on the matter.
For those who don't check these things maniacally, Paul is now polling at 8% among likely Republican voters in NH (pdf). However, that's misleading because as everyone knows, RP supporters are "spammers," i.e. they fanatically vote for their candidate more so than other supporters do for their guy or gal. I.e., people can tell a pollster they'll likely vote in the primary, but I bet more Ron Paul supporters actually do it.
One poster even asserted that "a person's religious faith... passes inspection as long as they... understand that faith is a belief, not a fact." In other words, she'll vote for someone as long as their ideas are an incoherent jumble, and they are able to "believe" something without thinking that it is a fact! "I believe it's raining out, but I know that, factually speaking, it is not."
What I find astonishing about this list is how much of it has actually happened, as we head into 2008.
1. I would think that Asian central banks, by buying U.S. dollars, have been driving a massive distortion of real exchange and interest rates.
2. I would think that the U.S. economy is overinvested in non-export durables, most of all residential housing.
3. I would think that we have piled on far too much debt, in both the private and public sectors.
4. I would think these trends cannot possibly continue. Asian central banks may come to their senses. Furthermore the U.S. would be like an addict who needs an ever-increasing dose of the monetary fix. This, of course, would eventually prove impossible.
5. I would think that the U.S. economy is due for a dollar plunge, and a massive sectoral shift toward exports. Furthermore I would think it will not handle such an unexpected shock very well.
6. I would buy puts on T-Bond futures and become rich.
7. I would think that Hayek's Monetary Nationalism and International Stability, now priced at $70 a copy, is the secret tract for our times.Of course that is not me. But at least someone appears to believe in Austrian business cycle theory. By the way, here is one summary of the theory, although I do not agree with the characterization in all respects.
(1) is still somewhat debatable as far as empirical evidence goes.
(2) is consistent with the housing bubble and the continued decline in housing prices.
(3) is seems increasingly evident, though there may be room for debate on this.
(4) may be happening.
(5) dollar plunge is evident, how we are coping with it is less so, at least to me.
(6) an investment opportunity may have been missed.
I have never read that text by Hayek, nor have I yet read Tyler Cowen's book Risk and Business Cycles: New and Old Austrian Perspectives, though it looks worthwhile. I'm undecided as to whether Austrian Business Cycle Theory is entirely correct, but it's certainly interesting how prescient Tyler's Austrian alter-ego is. Any readers know how rich he would be?
What's the historical reference he's making? A free subscription to Crash Landing to the first ten readers to get it right. (Of course, given the paucity of comments lately, I'm not sure there are ten readers.)
By the way, this is one of my two great re-inventions. When I first arrived at panarchism, I had no idea others had done so before me. My other great re-invention was to come up with the Sieve of Eratosthenes one afternoon at work.
Yes, in the bombing of Hiroshima, it "cost" America maybe a hundred thousand Japanese lives "to keep us free." As though Japan in 1945 posed any threat to the freedom of American citizens, and as though the death of Japanese civilians was a "cost" Americans were paying!
"Granted, the unleashing of an atomic weapon was horrible, but he was acting under an order that ultimately saved more lives than it took."
Per the calculations of those who, after the bombing, sought to justify this war crime. Luke Wagoner, of course, has no idea what the trade-off in lives was, but simply chooses to believe the bombers.
"Honor the man for having the courage to do what was necessary."
Just as we should honor Adolph Eichmann for "doing what was necessary" to rid Germany of the scourge of the Jews.
…, 1010, 1011, 1000, 1001, 1110, 1111, 1100, 1101, 10, 11, 0, 1, 110, 111, 100, 101, 11010, 11011, 11000, 11001, 11110, ...
Here are the integers from -10 to +10 listed in the usual way--in sequence and in ascending order. So “0” is 0 and “1” is 1. If the encoding is context-free, then “0” is always 0 and “1” is always 1. In fact, this is true. So nothing represents minus sign (or plus sign). We have some sort of binary system which represents the integers without the use of signs; and judging by this modest sample, it represents all the integers uniquely, just like more familiar numerations. The fact that log2(21) = 4+ (just edging into the five-digit numerals) supports these hypotheses. Arithmetic? Looks dicey, but simple algorithms must exist, because indeed this is a familiar radix system (successive positions indicate successive powers of the so-called base). Most familiar is base 10; reformers have pushed base 12; computer geeks use base 2 (binary), base 16 (hexadecimal), and occasionally base 8 (octal). The numeration in question is radix, base -2.
I include Steadman’s interesting comment from I.V. I.
Are there negative numbers in the list? Have you dropped the signs or are they encoded too? They appear to be base four couplets, but it's 1AM, I just finished a lot of work, and my brain is dead.
Substituting as follows:A=10, B=11, C=00, D=01, your list is then
which has enough in common with counting to make me think I'm close, but I'd be more convinced if D was followed by BA.
"PORTLAND, OR. Nov. 2, 2007 - The Pentagon has ordered twelve new Imperial Walkers for special duty in Iraq, and in preparation of possible military escalations with Iran.
The Imperial Walker Program had been under secret development until recently when the US government accidentally tortured a US scientist working on the program. The scientist was subjected to water boarding and confessed he had indeed leaked documents to the press. Since then, critics of the program have grown, including some in Congress."
Anyway, early on in the segment they interview a customer of the station. Now listen carefully. When she is explaining why it's a good idea, her initial reason is that these Middle Eastern countries don't "do what we want them to." Then I think even she realized how awful that sounded, so she started talking about innocent people.