Teleologic Blog

« July 2005 | Main | September 2005 »

August 31, 2005

New blogger: Michael Barone

Barone is a writer for U.S. News. Now he has a blog (for who knows how long...). So far, its worth the read. Now in my daily blog section.

Posted by rakhier at 10:53 AM | Comments (0)

When there is no solution - Wicked Problems

Many problems found in running countries (political problems) fall into the category of wicked problems. This is the Wikipedia definition.

Armed Liberal wrote about such problems here and here.

1. There is no definitive formulation of a wicked problem - unlike the question "how do we prevent this street from flooding during the fall rains". So a wicked problem like what we see in Iraq today defies any attempt to even describe the problem clearly.
2. Wicked problems have no stopping rule - unlike the problem of "does your house have an electrical hook-up?" when would you say we have completed our work in Iraq?
3. Solutions to wicked problems are not true-or-false, but good-or-bad - example: I want to defend the United States from terrorist attack. Binary solution? Hardly.
4. There is no immediate and no ultimate test of a solution to a wicked problem - in other words, in the short term you cann't know if you have succeeded.
5. Every solution to a wicked problem is a "one-shot operation"; because there is no opportunity to learn by trial-and-error, every attempt counts significantly. All attempted solutions change the problem you are trying to fix. You don't get to say "well that didn't work, lets try this again with a different solution".
6. Wicked problems do not have an enumerable (or an exhaustively describable) set of potential solutions, nor is there a well-described set of permissible operations that may be incorporated into the plan. Again, since the problem can't be clearly described, there is no clear set of solutions.
7. Every wicked problem is essentially unique. This condition is self-evident as every real world problem is unique in some sense. For wicked problems we mean unique in that a huge number of variables are different from any possible historical example. For example, if we were to take over Iran, the problems and the solutions would not be the same as Iraq. Iran is not Iraq.
8. Every wicked problem can be considered to be a symptom of another problem - this is due in large part to the fact that you can't clearly define the problem you are trying to solve in the first place. Since you can't define the problem, logical analysis does not stop you from redefining the problem as a symptom of some other problem.
9. The existence of a discrepancy in representing a wicked problem can be explained in numerous ways. The choice of explanation determines the nature of the problem's resolution. - Since you can't clearly define the problem, the way any one person defines the problem will determin their proposed solution.
10. The planner or designer (solving the problem) has no inherent right to solve the problem, and no permission to make mistakes - in other words: the person who is trying to solve the problem does not have a clear mandate (legal authority) to solve the problem.

Most problems in life which are worth political debate are wicked problems. For example, no one talks about how to provide clean water for a city because we know how to do it. The problem is clean, simple, well understood, and well defined.

For anyone to assert that they "know the answer" to problems like we see in Iraq today, is to deny the reality of wicked problems. There are no simple, clear solutions to wicked problems. The best we can do is try something that makes sense, learn from mistakes, and have determination. A half-way decent solution (with some error correction) followed consistently for 10 years is better than a good solution which is only figured out after 8 years of switching around from bad solution to bad solution.

Posted by rakhier at 10:22 AM | Comments (0)

August 30, 2005

Harder than Diamond

A new version of carbon has been created which is harder than diamond.

Physicists in Germany have created a material that is harder than diamond. Natalia Dubrovinskaia and colleagues at the University of Bayreuth made the new material by subjecting carbon-60 molecules to immense pressures. The new form of carbon, which is known as aggregated diamond nanorods, is expected to have many industrial applications.

The hardness of a material is measured by its isothermal bulk modulus. Aggregated diamond nanorods have a modulus of 491 gigapascals (GPa), compared with 442 GPa for conventional diamond. Dubrovinskaia and two of her co-workers - Leonid Dubrovinky and Falko Langenhorst - have patented the process used to make the new material.

Diamond derives its hardness from the fact that each carbon atom is connected to four other atoms by strong covalent bonds. The new material is different in that it is made of tiny interlocking diamond rods. Each rod is a crystal that has a diameter of between 5 and 20 nanometres and a length of about 1 micron.

The group created the ADNRs by compressing the carbon-60 molecules to 20 GPa, which is nearly 200 times atmospheric pressure, while simultaneously heating to 2500 Kelvin. "The synthesis was possible due to a unique 5000-tonne multianvil press at Bayerisches Geoinstitut in Bayreuth that is capable of reaching pressures of 25 GPa and temperatures of 2700 K at the same time," Dubrovinskaia told PhysicsWeb.

The Bayreuth team measured the properties of the samples with a diamond anvil cell at the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility at Grenoble in France. These measurements indicated that ADNRs are about 0.3% denser than diamond, and that the new material has the lowest compressibility of any known material.

In addition to working out why the new material is so hard, the Bayreuth team also hope to exploit its industrial potential. "We have developed a concept for innovative technology to produce the novel material in industrial-scale quantities and now we are looking for partners in order to realize our ideas," said Dubrovinskaia.

While nice, I doubt anything really important will come from this. Its not that much better than normal diamond.

Posted by rakhier at 08:46 AM | Comments (0)

August 29, 2005

The non-war with the Nazis in 1936

The essayist Callimachus describes a fictional war against Nazi Germany in 1936 which would have stopped Hitler in his tracks and saved the lives of tens of millions of people. He then describes how the anti-war movement of today would have completely rejected such a war (which in fact did not occur). Makes for a great read.

I'll give you my version of a necessary war: The brief 1936 conflict between Germany, alone, and France, Britain, and Czechoslovakia.

It began when Hitler, the German dictator now little remembered in history, marched 20,000 troops into the Rhineland demilitarized zone, in violation of articles 42 and 43 of the Treaty of Versailles. France pulled itself out of a political crisis and united behind this threat from its old enemy. It used the treaty violation as a pretext to declare war. France's stauch allies in Czechoslovakia joined them, secure in the fastness of the Sudeten mountains, thus tying down Nazi troops in central Germany.

Britain, too, stood with its French ally, though not without some debate over France's unilateralism. The British in the end provided key air support and blockaded German North Sea ports, though relatively few British troops crossed the Channel until the fighting was almost over.

When war began, French divisions streamed into the Rhineland at several points, and the overwhelmed Germans, after brief resistance, retired across the bridges. They set up a defense on the east bank, but when the French penetrated this at several points, the German army rose up under von Blomberg and von Fristsch and overthrew Hitler and his gang. The top Nazis were executed after trial in German courts in which horrible crimes -- and even more horrible plans -- came to light, along with evidence of their vast corruption.

The German military leaders negotiated a new settlement with the Allies, revising several provisions of Versailles that no longer reflected realities on the ground. Nazi functionaries were purged from local offices, extremist parties were banned from German politics, and, with the aid of the occupying powers, after much difficulty and insurgency, Germany gradually returned to a democratic system of self-government, more robust than the failed Weimar Republic.

Why is this war "necessary?" Because it prevents World War II in Europe, the Holocaust, and the deaths of tens of millions of people, from the North Sea to the Russian steepe.

But would it stand up to the modern anti-Iraq-War activist's definitions of justified? Put him in the Wayback Machine and set the dial to 1936. Remember, he doesn't know there's going to be a World War II in Europe. Like the pacifists Orwell scorned, he probably thinks Hitler is not such a bad guy as he's made out to be in the capitalist press, and anyway the leaders of Britain and America are the real threat to world peace.
What will he say, in protesting this "unjust and unnecessary" war?

• Hitler was provoked. Just a month before the remilitarization of the Rhineland, France and Russia had signed a mutual assistance pact that was a direct threat against Germany. France had engaged in a massive build-up of fortifications right on the border of Germany, and it was denying Hitler's right to defend himself. It was the old hegemony double standard.
  
• What Hitler did was merely an internal matter. The French violated German sovereignty without just cause. Why, Hitler had never attacked France. Hitler was just moving troops in his own backyard. As G.B. Shaw said, "It was as if the British had reoccupied Portsmouth."
  
• Hiding behind the Versailles Treaty was a red herring. It had already been violated. Germany had effectively renounced it a year before by bringing back the draft, and France and Britain had done nothing but make diplomatic protests.
  
• Even worse, Britain herself had signed the Anglo-German Naval Treaty with Hitler that allowed Germany to build a battle fleet that included submarines, something forbidden by Versailles. Britain itself already had participated in a violation of the treaty!
  
• There was no public support for the war in France and Britain. The people were solidly against war. They remembered the betrayed ideals of 1914, and they had indicated again and again their revulsion with the very idea of warfare.
  
• By contrast, the remilitarization was wildly popular with the German people. In the Rhineland, women tossed flowers and priests showered blessings on German troops marching under the Swastika flag.
  
• The door was still open for negotiation. Hitler, in announcing the resumption of German authority in the Rhineland, had said unequivocally, before the whole world, "we pledge that now, more than ever, we shall strive for an understanding between European peoples, especially for one with our Western neighbor nations .... We have no territorial demands to make in Europe! ... Germany will never break the peace."
  
• France did not go first to the League of Nations and attempt to use its authority to condemn the German action. Thus, its invasion lacked legitimacy. Instead of evicting the Nazis at once, France should have gone the League route and then put its military forces entirely under control of the League, to be bound by whatever the League decided to do.
  
• False pretenses! A scare that never materialized. The British were told over and over that they would be at the mercy of German bombers. Churchill asserted that the first week of the war would kill up to 40,000 Londoners [Nov. 28, 1934]. Baldwin warned the "man in the street" that, "Whatever people may tell him, the bomber will always get through." Yet in the lightning defeat of Germany's small military, the Nazi air force never got off the ground. The mighty swarm from the skies that struck fear in so many in Britain and France existed only on paper.

The non-war in response to the Nazi occupation of the Rhineland is one of the great historical "what ifs". We now know that Germany's army was very skeptical about this move and was serious about staging a coup against Hitler if the French and British had gone to war over the move. Sadly, nothing was done and 4 years later, World War II broke out.

Posted by rakhier at 04:58 PM | Comments (0)

The Brain's Own Pain Relievers At Work in Placebo Effect...

This from a short entry in the SciAm web site:

Sometimes, just thinking you are receiving treatment is enough to make you feel better, a phenomenon known as the placebo effect. Scientists have long wondered what causes this outcome, the magnitude of which is not the same for all people. A new brain imaging study suggests that the body's natural painkillers, endorphins, play a significant role.

Previous studies had shown general changes in brain activity associated with the placebo effect by using functional magnetic resonance imaging, and scientists had hypothesized that the brain's opioid system was involved. This time, by utilizing positron emission tomography (PET) brain scans for the new work, the researchers were able to focus on a specific type of brain receptor and track its response to a placebo. The PET scans employed by Jon-Kar Zubieta of the University of Michigan and his colleagues measured the activity of mu-opioid receptors, which are an integral part of the body's natural painkilling system and help transmit pain signals from one nerve cell to the next. The team asked 14 healthy male volunteers to undergo the slightly painful but harmless procedure of having saltwater injected into their jaws. Over the course of a 20-minute procedure, volunteers recorded the intensity of their pain every 15 seconds and then summarized their experience afterward. In a randomized trial, some subjects received an analgesic medication, whereas others were told they were being given medication, but received none.

According to a report published today in the Journal of Neuroscience, all of the participants who were told to expect medicine but got a placebo instead showed an increase in the activity of their endorphin system. Four brain regions were involved and activity in specific areas was also associated with the subjects' own descriptions of the pain they felt. For example, activity in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex correlated to how effective the volunteers were expecting the medicine to be at relieving their pain.

The results are the first direct evidence that endorphins can help explain the placebo effect. "This deals a serious blow to the idea that the placebo effect is a purely psychological, not physical, phenomenon," Zubieta says. "We were able to see that the endorphin system was activated in pain-related areas of the brain, and that activity increased when someone was told they were receiving a medicine to ease their pain."

The placebo effect has been a mystery for several decades but this new theory and study is quite reasonable. The brain is a physical system...

Posted by rakhier at 12:13 PM | Comments (0)

Chris Hitchens Lays out 10 Positives for the Bush Administration

This essay by Hitchens describes the reason why he supports the neo-con view on the world. Here he lists 10 postive things that have happened since 9/11 which the Bush administration can take credit

But a positive accounting could be offered without braggartry, and would include:

(1) The overthrow of Talibanism and Baathism, and the exposure of many highly suggestive links between the two elements of this Hitler-Stalin pact. Abu Musab al Zarqawi, who moved from Afghanistan to Iraq before the coalition intervention, has even gone to the trouble of naming his organization al Qaeda in Mesopotamia.

(2) The subsequent capitulation of Qaddafi's Libya in point of weapons of mass destruction--a capitulation that was offered not to Kofi Annan or the E.U. but to Blair and Bush.

(3) The consequent unmasking of the A.Q. Khan network for the illicit transfer of nuclear technology to Libya, Iran, and North Korea.

(4) The agreement by the United Nations that its own reform is necessary and overdue, and the unmasking of a quasi-criminal network within its elite.

(5) The craven admission by President Chirac and Chancellor Schröder, when confronted with irrefutable evidence of cheating and concealment, respecting solemn treaties, on the part of Iran, that not even this will alter their commitment to neutralism. (One had already suspected as much in the Iraqi case.)

(6) The ability to certify Iraq as actually disarmed, rather than accept the word of a psychopathic autocrat.

(7) The immense gains made by the largest stateless minority in the region--the Kurds--and the spread of this example to other states.

(8) The related encouragement of democratic and civil society movements in Egypt, Syria, and most notably Lebanon, which has regained a version of its autonomy.

(9) The violent and ignominious death of thousands of bin Ladenist infiltrators into Iraq and Afghanistan, and the real prospect of greatly enlarging this number.

(10) The training and hardening of many thousands of American servicemen and women in a battle against the forces of nihilism and absolutism, which training and hardening will surely be of great use in future combat.

It would be admirable if the president could manage to make such a presentation. It would also be welcome if he and his deputies adopted a clear attitude toward the war within the war: in other words, stated plainly, that the secular and pluralist forces within Afghan and Iraqi society, while they are not our clients, can in no circumstance be allowed to wonder which outcome we favor.

The great point about Blair's 1999 speech was that it asserted the obvious. Coexistence with aggressive regimes or expansionist, theocratic, and totalitarian ideologies is not in fact possible. One should welcome this conclusion for the additional reason that such coexistence is not desirable, either. If the great effort to remake Iraq as a demilitarized federal and secular democracy should fail or be defeated, I shall lose sleep for the rest of my life in reproaching myself for doing too little. But at least I shall have the comfort of not having offered, so far as I can recall, any word or deed that contributed to a defeat.

I'm optimistic about Iraq. We have made lots of mistakes (as always happens) but I think we are learning and doing better. The real advantage we have is our enemies are not supported by powerful nations that we cannot attack (unlike the North Vietnamese who were supported by both China and the U.S.S.R.).

Posted by rakhier at 09:21 AM | Comments (0)

Economic Prediction about the world in 2020 by Deutsche Bank

This essay is a summary of a report created by Deutsche Bank in which they speculate on the shape of the world's economy in 2020

What will the world’s economy look like in 2020? ... by Jacques-Henri David, President of the Deutsche Bank Group in France.

I would like to add my contribution to this discussion, beginning with the results of a recent study by the Deutsche Bank Group, which analyzes the macroeconomic evolution of the major continents over the next fifteen years.

Combining the theories of growth and analyzing the evolution of development in the 34 principal countries in the world, this study apprehends the principal factors affecting growth and the trends at work today. It draws up a probability chart of the economic situation for the world in 2020, and the results of these projections are fascinating.

In 2020, the United States will remain the world superpower, with a total GNP of approximately $17 trillion to $18 trillion. Thanks to its dynamic demographics (1% annual population growth), a productivity and a competitiveness amongst the best in the world (currently second in the world and far out in front of Germany (13th) or France (26th) according to statistics from the World Economic Forum), and thanks also to its constant drive to create and innovate, and with flexibility due to the mobility of its labor force, the United States will maintain a clear advantage over China and India and will widen the gap with Europe. With average per capita salaries of approximately $55,000, the income of the average American in 2020 will be 1.5 to 2 times greater than that of a European; five times higher than that of a Chinese and nine times more than that of an Indian (approximately $6,000 per capita).

China will indisputably be the world’s second greatest economic power, with a GNP of some $14 trillion, or three times higher than today.

That of course assumes that beyond the inevitable short-term risks, no major social crisis interrupts the long-term dynamics: a progressive opening to the outside, an increase in domestic consumption, strong growth - in particular in foreign investment, and the rapid improvement in the qualifications of China’s working population (China already has the same number of engineers and technicians as the West, and more than any of the large European countries). Even more than today, China in 2020 will be the industrial workshop of the world.

Paradoxically, one of its handicaps will be an aging population, due to the delayed impact of its "one child policy." By 2020, the median age in China will be approximately 40 years, which will be higher than in the United States.

The world’s third greatest economic power will be India, but far behind the first two, with a GNP of about $7 trillion.

India should be the uncontested champion in terms of growth, due its demographics, its highly qualified labor force, the ease with which it can be integrated into the global economic system thanks to the wide use of English throughout its population, and thanks also to its mastery of communications technologies, especially the Internet. If China can be held out as the world’s future industrial workshop, India will undoubtedly be one of the great service societies.

In Europe, Germany, France, along with Italy and the United Kingdom, should lose ground in the world competition with a GNP per country of about $2 to 2.5 trillion.

While European countries will remain rich in terms of per capita income (about $32,500), their relative weight will decline with their demographics and weaker growth (on average, almost half as much as the United States). Countries like Spain or Ireland will experience a higher level of development than the European average, thanks to a wider opening of their economies to the outside, the dynamism of their investments, good population growth forecasts and effective immigration policies.

Ireland, for example, in 2020 will have the second highest GNP per capita in the world, just behind the U.S. The increased weight of these new stars on the European landscape will not, however, be sufficient to compensate for the retreat of its historic champions [Britain, France, Germany] who will feel the full weight of their society’s declining demographics [aging populations].

This report must not find us indifferent, and it suggests a certain number of remarks. It is also a call to action. There is, first of all, some good news: the resilience and performance of the United States. Indeed, a major concern about economic and financial conditions today are ballooning American deficits and fear that the monetary system will implode as the fall of the dollar accelerates, which would lead to a grave global crises.

Actually, because the United States will remain the world’s superpower for the next two decades, the dollar still has some beautiful days ahead of it, remaining the key international reserve currency, so American budget deficits should remain under control, can be financed, which should avert a major international crisis.

Another conclusion: the European countries must, without delay, reconstruct their political project to find the real dynamics of integration. Without that, individually, we will all be relegated to third class. We must do everything to reverse current tendencies by mobilizing our assets: our infrastructure, our capacity to undertake research and development, our "rules of law," the depth and effectiveness of our financial markets, and the importance of saving levels ... We must develop all of these elements to the maximum in order to compensate for our handicaps: stagnant demographics and a lack of flexibility in our social structures.

To take only one example in regard to future technologies: In France we have a perfect command of nuclear power. Nuclear power being the oil of tomorrow, it is a considerable advantage. Many other fields have the same logic: biotechnology, technologies of communication and knowledge, pharmacy, health, etc. We must completely mobilize ourselves to these issues, starting with the project of European integration.

Whatever the hazards of the now-broken process for approving the European Constitution, nothing prevents our governments from promoting practical projects, combining political goodwill and budgetary efficiency. In this way we can recapture the dynamism of the European political project that is now so lacking.

Finally, I dare say that to overcome Europe’s demographic shortcomings in the years to come, it will be necessary for us to lay down and implement a more finely-tuned immigration policy. In spite of the sensitivity of the subject, we shouldn’t underestimate the determinative role that the population structure will have in the future, in particular the average age and qualifications within society and on growth around the world. This is one of the great challenges that Europe must rise to.

I am not confident that China will continue its current growth for the next 15 years. My personal guess is that China is going to experience a period of substantial internal chaos sometime between now and then. I don't believe that the Chinese government will be able to maintain their grip on political power while giving the people economic power. Never-the-less, I think China will be close to the predicted economic level that this report suggests.

Posted by rakhier at 09:10 AM | Comments (0)

August 25, 2005

Best War Reporting from Iraq...

While ArmorGeddon has published some great essays from the war (like this one Caught in the Kill Zone), this essay by Michael Yon called Gates of Fire is extraordinary. Here is an excerpt from his encounter in Mosul in mid-August of 2005

Kurilla was running when he was shot, but he didn't seem to miss a stride; he did a crazy judo roll and came up shooting.

BamBamBamBam! Bullets were hitting all around Kurilla. The young 2nd lieutenant and specialist were the only two soldiers near. Neither had real combat experience. AH had no weapon. I had a camera.

Seconds count.

Kurilla, though dowm and unable to move, was fighting and firing, yelling at the two young soldiers to get in there; but they hesitated. BamBamBamBam!

Kurilla was in the open, but his judo roll had left him slightly to the side of the shop. I screamed to the young soldiers, "Throw a grenade in there!" but they were not attacking.

"Throw a grenade in there!" They did not attack.

"Give me a grenade!" They didn't have grenades.

"Erik! Do you need me to come get you!" I shouted. But he said "No." (Thank God; running in front of the shop might have proved fatal.)

"What's wrong with you!?" I yelled above the shooting.

"I'm hit three times! I'm shot three times!"

Amazingly, he was right. One bullet smashed through his femur, snapping his leg. His other leg was hit and so was an arm.

Read the whole thing.

Posted by rakhier at 01:41 PM | Comments (0)

August 23, 2005

Hollywood: Its now a badge of honor to hate America...

This is from an essay by a Hollywood script writer who is both an observent Jew and a Republican. He attacks Hollywood today.

Hollywood, once upon a time, was one of the most patriotic colonies on the planet. During World War II, Frank Capra made a series of propaganda films titled “Why We Fight.” Marlene Dietrich put herself through a most grueling schedule visiting and entertaining our troops and selling war bonds. Jimmy Stewart joined the Air Force. Numerous movie stars put their careers on hold to help the war effort. These men and women loved America and understood who the enemy was and why the enemy had to be not only defeated but obliterated from the face of the earth.

Look at Hollywood now. Sean Penn goes to Iraq and apologizes for American war crimes. Hollywood’s patron saint is Michael Moore, its liturgy his package of lies, the movie “Fahrenheit 9/11.” When this film had its Hollywood premiere, the red carpet was choked with stars just dying to make an anti-Bush statement. We’re talking about movie stars who know basically nothing about politics. To call them fools would be generous. I have spent time with too many of these people, and believe me, if you’re not talking about how beautiful or how talented they are, the conversation sort of just dies.

It is, I kid you not, a badge of honor in Hollywood to hate America. These airheads who have amassed millions through the free market economy constantly spout nonsense about the need for a Scandinavian style socialist government. They don’t even know that the Scandinavian countries are economic basket cases. I’m not making this up. They actually cruise Sunset Strip in their Bentleys and accuse Republicans of being greedy.

Clearly, when Hollywood refuses to make films which identify "the bad guys" as Moslem fanatics, something has gone wrong. And something has gone wrong. The center of the liberal mind is no longer rational. Instead they live in a world which denies reality and asserts, time after time, that it is America which is evil and every one else who attacks us who is good.

Posted by rakhier at 02:49 PM | Comments (0)

China's Economy is screwed up so badly... (oil prices)

This comment talks about how badly China's oil companies are being treated by the Central government of China. Essay here at Peking Duck.

The chaos created by sudden fuel shortages in Guangdong Province continues. Even yesterday, I noticed several petrol stations guarded by armed PLA troops. The signs outside warned that fuel was only available for public and government vehicles. The official reason for the shortages proffered by the central government, laughably, concerned last week’s typhoon that hit the province. Additional speculation for the shortages blamed market distortions due to price controls, alas this was only partly correct. Finally, the Hong Kong media got it right yesterday, the real reasons for the shortages have been common knowledge in Guangzhou for several weeks:

There are strong reasons to believe [Sinopec and PetroChina] have deliberately halted supplies to create seeming chaos...they want to pressure the NDRC ["National Development and Reform Commission" – the government body responsible for setting retail prices for refined oil products] for an immediate increase in oil product prices, thus cutting their considerable losses on refinery production stemming from the rising price of imported crude...the energy companies want to eventually force the NDRC to completely free oil product pricing so that they can completely dominate the market...[and] to take the opportunity to acquire the few petrol stations that they don't already run.

Still, how is it possible for two majority state-owned companies to go to war with their own government? Had any reporters bothered to visit Guangzhou and simply asked the first taxi driver they saw, they too, would have been told the following story in excruciating detail:

China's bureaucratic system makes it possible for the two giants to dare to challenge the NDRC's authority because, administratively, Sinopec and PetroChina are under the supervision of the State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission, not the NDRC. And, in the bureaucratic hierarchy, the duo are vice ministry or ministry-level units whose top executives are appointed by the State Council or cabinet. Given the rampant turf protection and regionalism on the mainland today, it is not uncommon for government units with competing interests to run into conflicts.

That’s the ‘how’ of it, as to the ‘why’, we need only to glance at the balance sheets of the mainland’s oil refiners. Together they lost 4.19 billion yuan in the first half of this year. Compare that to a profit of 16.38 billion yuan for the same period last year (figures from the China Petroleum and Chemical Industry Association). No wonder there are few happy bunnies among the executives at Sinopec and PetroChina. Their crude oil refining companies have been sacrificed for the greater good of society, i.e. to bear the losses incurred in providing cheap subsidized oil. Technically, China’s domestic crude and refined oil prices are linked to the international benchmarks but, in reality, domestic price increases have only been applied to crude, domestic refined oil prices have not closely followed those of the international market and have therefore fallen way behind in the last couple of years as international prices have sky-rocketed. Indeed, US$70 per barrel is fully expected within the next week or two.

(the unlinkable) South China Morning Post columnist Eric Ng further explains:

Refiners' profitability remains at the mercy of macroeconomic policies of central government planners. With inflation control and closing the income gap between rural and urban China high on the state leaders' agenda, the soaring diesel bill of the increasingly mechanised farming community has more political value than the red ink of oil refiners' income statements.

It is hard to blame the government planners for dragging their feet on rising fuel prices, as complaints from 60 per cent of the population living in rural areas are louder than the outcry of the two domestic oil giants.

Now that the small independent refiners have shut their plants or cut production to avoid further losses, the two oil giants are asked to pick up the slack by despatching more fuel to supply-short areas. And they have to serve rising overseas demand too, as refined oil exports surged 45.5 per cent in the first seven months of this year, in contrast to a 20.9 per cent fall in imports.

It will be a tough balancing act for the government to weigh the ills of fuel smuggling, shortages and hoarding against popular discontent spawned by high fuel prices.

A couple of months ago several taxi drivers warned me about "trouble brewing" between the oil refiners and the government. "How come you're so clued-up about the machinations of the big oil refiners?" I asked.

"Because any rise in the petrol prices might mean that I can't pay the rent for my family's apartment," he replied.

Good answer, I thought.

One particularly colourful taxi driver raged at the hypocrisy of the "powers that be" in China: "The so-called principles of the big oil companies change as often as the weather," he complained. "If international crude prices crashed down to US$10 a barrel they'd slip on their red hats and become hard-nosed socialists all praising the planned socialist economy and how domestic oil prices must be maintained artificially high 'for national stability'. Now however, after making a killing for years, they complain about that same planned economy that feathered their nests for years isn't to their taste. If the government suddenly let the oil refiners raise prices how many people would suffer? The government must get its economic house in order before allowing the oil companies a free reign."

Always on the ball, Simonworld noted this
excellent point earlier:

"...as Sinopec and PetroChina have listed many of
their business operations in overseas securities
markets, they are increasingly able to cite
"shareholder interests'' as an excuse to defy
government orders.

Maybe market economics can triumph over Communism
after all? The writer is implying that Sinopec and
PetroChina are using shareholder interests as a fig
leaf to ignore orders. What if, perhaps, they actually
believe in creating shareholder value and subverting
Government orders is a means to that end?

China's economy is in a mess because the Central Government can't let go. It's on its way to free market, but not there...

Posted by rakhier at 02:24 PM | Comments (0)

August 22, 2005

The anti-war left thinks soldiers are children...

Mark Steyn has a must-read essay on "Mother Sheehan". Its worth the read...

Cndy Sheehan's son Casey died in Sadr City last year, and that fact is supposed to put her beyond reproach. For as the New York Times' Maureen Dowd informed us: ''The moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute."

Really? Well, what about those other parents who've buried children killed in Iraq? There are, sadly, hundreds of them: They honor their loved ones' service to the nation, and so they don't make the news. There's one Cindy Sheehan, and she's on TV 'round the clock. Because, if you're as heavily invested as Dowd in the notion that those "killed in Iraq" are "children," then Sheehan's status as grieving matriarch is a bonanza.

They're not children in Iraq; they're grown-ups who made their own decision to join the military. That seems to be difficult for the left to grasp. Ever since America's all-adult, all-volunteer army went into Iraq, the anti-war crowd have made a sustained effort to characterize them as "children." If a 13-year-old wants to have an abortion, that's her decision and her parents shouldn't get a look-in. If a 21-year-old wants to drop to the broadloom in Bill Clinton's Oval Office, she's a grown woman and free to do what she wants. But, if a 22- or 25- or 37-year-old is serving his country overseas, he's a wee "child" who isn't really old enough to know what he's doing.

I get many e-mails from soldiers in Iraq, and they sound a lot more grown-up than most Ivy League professors and certainly than Maureen Dowd, who writes like she's auditioning for a minor supporting role in ''Sex And The City.''

The infantilization of the military promoted by the left is deeply insulting to America's warriors but it suits the anti-war crowd's purposes. It enables them to drone ceaselessly that "of course" they "support our troops," because they want to stop these poor confused moppets from being exploited by the Bush war machine.

I resisted writing about "Mother Sheehan" (as one leftie has proposed designating her), as it seemed obvious that she was at best a little unhinged by grief and at worst mentally ill. It's one thing to mourn a son's death and even to question the cause for which he died, but quite another to roar that he was "murdered by the Bush crime family."

Also: "You tell me the truth. You tell me that my son died for oil. You tell me that my son died to make your friends rich. You tell me my son died to spread the cancer of Pax Americana . . . You get America out of Iraq, you get Israel out of Palestine."

And how about this? "America has been killing people on this continent since it was started. This country is not worth dying for." That was part of her warm-up act for a speech by Lynne Stewart, the "activist" lawyer convicted of conspiracy for aiding the terrorists convicted of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

You can see why Lynne's grateful to Sheehan. But why is Elizabeth Edwards sending out imploring letters headlined "Support Cindy Sheehan's Right To Be Heard"? The politics of this isn't difficult: The more Cindy Sheehan is heard the more obvious it is she's thrown her lot in with kooks most Americans would give a wide berth to.

Don't take my word for it, ask her family. Casey Sheehan's grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins put out the following statement:

"The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect."

Ah, well, they're not immediate family, so they lack Cindy's "moral authority." But how about Casey's father, Pat Sheehan? Last Friday, in Solano County Court, Casey's father Pat Sheehan filed for divorce. As the New York Times explained Cindy's "separation," "Although she and her estranged husband are both Democrats, she said she is more liberal than he is, and now, more radicalized."

Toppling Saddam and the Taliban (Mrs. Sheehan opposes U.S. intervention in Afghanistan, too), destroying al-Qaida's training camps and helping 50 million Muslims on the first steps to free societies aren't worth the death of a single soldier. But Cindy Sheehan's hatred of Bush is worth the death of her marriage. Watching her and her advanced case of Bush Derangement Syndrome on TV, I feel the way I felt about that mentally impaired Aussie concert pianist they got to play at the Oscars a few years.

Yet in the wreckage of Pat and Cindy Sheehan's marriage there is surely a lesson for the Democratic Party. As Cindy says, they're both Democrats, but she's "more liberal" and "more radicalized." There are a lot of less liberal and less radicalized Dems out there: They're soft-left-ish on health care and the environment and education and so forth; many have doubts about the war, but they love their country, they have family in the military, and they don't believe in dishonoring American soldiers to make a political point. The problem for the Democratic Party is that the Cindys are now the loudest voice: Michael Moore, Howard Dean, Moveon.org, and Air America, the flailing liberal radio network distracting attention from its own financial scandals by flying down its afternoon host Randi Rhodes to do her show live from Camp Casey. The last time I heard Miss Rhodes she was urging soldiers called up for Iraq to refuse to go -- i.e., to desert.

On unwatched Sunday talk shows, you can still stumble across the occasional sane, responsible Dem. But, in the absence of any serious intellectual attempt to confront their long-term decline, all the energy on the left is with the fringe. The Democratic Party is a coalition of Pat Sheehans and Cindy Sheehans, and the noisier the Cindys get the more estranged the Pats are likely to feel.

Sorry about that, but, if Mrs. Sheehan can insist her son's corpse be the determining factor in American policy on Iraq, I don't see why her marriage can't be a metaphor for the state of the Democratic Party.

Casey Sheehan was a 21-year old man when he enlisted in 2000. He re-enlisted for a second tour, and he died after volunteering for a rescue mission in Sadr City. Mrs. Sheehan says she wishes she'd driven him to Canada, though that's not what he would have wished, and it was his decision.

His mother has now left Crawford, officially because her mother has had a stroke, but promising to return. I doubt she will. Perhaps deep down she understands she's a woman whose grief curdled into a narcissistic rage, and most Americans will not follow where she's gone -- to the wilder shores of anti-Bush, anti-war, anti-Iraq, anti-Afghanistan, anti-Israel, anti-American paranoia. Casey Sheehan's service was not the act of a child. A shame you can't say the same about his mom's new friends.

I'm going to say this once: no one in America has more moral authority than anyone else. We are all equal in this country. I can talk about any issue and help enact any legislation. It does not matter what my skin color is or my sex or my race. Nor does it matter what my history is or my education. To assert otherwise is anti-democratic and spits in the face of what America is now, a nation of free people under the rule of law. Cindy Sheehan is one person, she has no greater moral authority than I have.

The Democratic party is failing to win national elections because there is no consensus within the party on some key issues: how to defend American from Islamic terrorists and how to keep the American economy strong. Until they do, the Republican party will continue to win presidential elections.

Posted by rakhier at 12:56 PM | Comments (0)

On Judging Presidential Candidates

One of the many problems I had with the Clinton-haters was they were attacking him for faults that had little (or nothing) to do with his ability as President of the United States.

Like Aristotle, I believe character matters, but character matters as a guide to how a person behaves in high political office. Ultimately what matters most about a man who attains high office is what does he do when he has power? Some people are incapable of handling the executive office (Jimmy Carter comes to mind). Some people reveal dictatorial or anti-democratic behaviors when in high office (like Richard Nixon). But the truth is what we need from a president is performance. Can he do the job?

Before we elect a person to office we need to make a judgement "is this person suitable for the job?" In Clinton's case, his failures of character (largely confined to fooling around with women who were very unlike his wife) were largely irrelevant considering the man had held executive office (Governor of Arkansas) for 12 years. Looking at the record of a governor for 12 years is highly instructive. Is the man corruptable? Does he appoint good or bad people to positions? Can he do the job? Clearly Clinton was a good if not great governor.

So, for those people who felt Clinton had bad character, while they had some grounds for this arguement, the purpose of the critique was nearly pointless, the key question "can he perform as a political executive" had been answered.

The hatred and the criticism for Clinton reached (for me) the height of madness during the 1996 campaign. At this point, having served as president for four years, questions about his character were utterly pointless. We knew how he would govern if he was re-elected, the only question worth considering was "had he done a good enough job with the first four years"?

All the fuss over the Whitewater land development deal was such a waste of time. There was no chance that Clinton would be revealed as a venal crook during his time as governor of Arkansas. Whitewater lost money for everyone involved - and Clinton never had much money even though he was a governor and his wife was an attorney.

All the fuss over Clinton's fooling around with other women was also pointless. Had he ever made a illegal or even bad decision as governor based on his fooling around with women who were not his wife? No one has ever made this arguement. So for all practicle, pragmatic concerns, Clinton's flaws were irrelevant to his suitability for president or for his running for a second term.

John Kerry

Some of Kerry's supporters tried to argue that the Swift Boat Vets who attacked Kerry's service in Vietnam were arguing over a similarly pointless issue (most Kerry supporters simply dismissed the Swift Boat Vets as liars). On this issue I disagree.

First, Kerry's career in government was hardly the best training for President. In fact I think being a Senator is inferior to being a Governor as far as training for president is concerned. There have been some good Presidents who were Senators (Lyndon Johnson comes to mind, as does Truman) but how about these former governors: Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and the current president G.W. Bush? So for Kerry, his character mattered. For his opponent in 2004, his character was largely irrelevant, we knew how Bush behaved in office, the question was "did he do a good job in his first four years"?

Kerry's character can be seen in three areas of his life: his performance in college, his performance in the Vietnam war, his performance as Senator. In college he was popular, political and a poor student (G.H. Bush actually had a slightly higher GPA, not that it matters much).

In the Senate Kerry was an average Sentator. He was nice, got on well with his colleges, and sponsored hundreds of bills. However, he was not very successful in getting his bills passed into law (only 9 passed) and none of them is noteworthy. Compared to other Senators of his time - Arlen Specter, Sam Nunn, Alan Simpson, and the great Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Kerry comes off as second best.

His service in Vietnam is quite relevant to his quest for the presidency. Here he was an executive with life and death decision-making power as captain of a small boat on the Mekong river. War is a test of character under harsh conditions. Here Kerry proved to be at least average, if not above average based on the Navy records at the time.

My question is (and remains) what lessons did he draw from that war? Was Containment - the policy Kennedy and Johnson were following which lead to Vietnam - the right policy? Should the U.S. have commited troops to Vietnam?

We know what Kerry thought as soon as the war ended, he was actively opposed to it. He made his political reputation on that basis. But 30 years have passed since the fall of Saigon and we know a lot more now than we did then. The key question Kerry never answered in the presidential campaign (to my mind): Was the Vietnam war justified? I felt that in the campaign Kerry wanted to have it both ways. On the one hand he wanted to keep faith with his earlier self and assert that the Vietnam war had been wrong, but on the other hand he wanted to give people the impression that he was "strong on defence" and did believe in using U.S. troops to intervene in other countries (specifically to hunt down Osama bin Laden).

My belief is that Kerry himself never really thought through the implications of his behavior during that time compared with the present and that was a key weakness. At the 60 (in 2003) Kerry was old enough to have developed a consistent, rational world view. But I don't think he had it. Or if he did, he couldn't explain it.

Was the Vietnam War right or wrong. This is still an important question today. For the next 20 years, this issue is still going to dominate U.S. foreing policy debate - until it is suplanted by "Was the invasion of Iraq right or wrong"

Posted by rakhier at 10:53 AM | Comments (0)

August 19, 2005

New super-fast way to make carbon nano-tube material..

Baughman's team can churn out up to ten metres of nanoribbon every minute, as easily as pulling a strip of sticky tape from a reel (see video ). This ribbon can be up to five centimetres wide, and after a simple wash in ethanol compacts to just 50 nanometres thick, making it 2,000 times thinner than a piece of paper.

The ribbons are transparent, flexible, and conduct electricity. Weight for weight, they are stronger than steel sheets, yet a square kilometre of the material would weigh only 30 kilograms. "This is basically a new material," says Baughman.

Article at News@Nature.com

Posted by rakhier at 02:56 PM | Comments (0)

August 10, 2005

Cicero on the Sitzkrieg's End...

Cicero, writing at Donklephant talks about how we used to live in a world where MAD made the future very simple.

The rules of M.A.D. — all or nothing — gave us a false sense of safety during the Cold War. In an all-or-nothing world mired in a vast global political struggle, each side could attain relative normalcy. Normal life was disproportionate to the high stakes of the nuclear standoff — and we got used to it. All those layers of morality we built over that blinding apocalyptic core of immaculate annihilation could work a lot of miracles, providing that the promise of destruction was mutual, and total.

It turns out the Cold War amounted to an entire half century of having it all, creating nominal safety. The nothing part of M.A.D. — Armageddon — never came to pass. And so we did indeed create a playground of prosperity: Shopping malls, freeways, cheap global travel, and the Internet; the plethora of things, rock-n-roll, the rise of socialism and multiculturalism; baseball, apple pie and Chevrolet. We got very used to that. Three generations grew up in the soil of transparent global war...

Since 9/11 we have enjoyed the seemingly endless dawn of Sitzkrieg — a period of declared emergency, but undeclared war. Our malls remain open, and gasoline flows freely. The housing market is hot. Mobilization for war is something we read about. But now there are multiple indications that terrorist nukes are either here, or coming, or in the making. Perhaps this is a long way off; perhaps it’s hearsay; perhaps it is close at hand. But if we want a meaningful definition of centrism, it should be something that can withstand the shocks of catastrophic terror. Discussing mega-terror should be on the centrist’s table, since 9/11 changed the rules. What are 9/11’s rules? That catastrophe can happen anytime, anyplace, to anyone, with no warning or apparent reason. On an unthinkable scale.

I found this first comment to the essay very thought-provoking...

I agree, and sadly the Democratic Party lags far behind the Reps in discussing the post-9/11 world. Much of the Party believes that if it can JUST get rid of Bush, dump Israel and run away from Iraq, the world will go back to 1996. Stupid but there you go. Escalation is part and parcel of the new, distributed threats we face from Islam that simply cannot accomodate Modern society. The Discovery Space shuttle was piloted by the woman commander, yet women in Saudi Arabia cannot even drive and have to live inside tents. In a shrinking world through the internet and satellite TV, jet travel this is a recipe for confrontation.

One or more of our cities WILL get nuked, if you believe Sam Nunn and www.nti.org. The question is, what will be the response? I believe the Dems must act NOW to articulate a framework for nuclear response, otherwise the reaction will be escalation on the part of the US beyond what people can conceive. “Solving” the problem by simply destroying the Muslim World, largely.

We do NOT face destruction of the entire World. Muslim extremists/terrorists can destroy three or four of our cities (likely with an Iranian, Pakistani, or North Korean set of nukes), but not the entire country. WE certainly can kill everyone in Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt if we wished. No one could or would stop us if we lost, say, San Diego and Dallas. Three to nine million dead Americans through nuclear terror would certainly provoke a demand for 300-400 million dead “enemies” on the part of the American people...

We really need to talk about this now, before it happens, instead of letting the terror and anger of the moment be the time we first talk about what to do...

Posted by rakhier at 08:27 PM | Comments (0)

VodkaPundit writes about 3 things you should write about in High School...

I liked this essay by Stephen Green of VodkaPundit.

The best English teacher I ever had was David "Don't Call Me 'Dave'" Cantwell, my first semester at Mizzou. David was "merely" a Teaching Assistant, getting his Master's in part by teaching well-meaning freshmen how to write decent essays. One semester, one journal, five essays. Two of them even now don't make me sick to re-read – quite an accomplishment for a frosh who thought it sounded smart to use the word "rather" rather too often.

David's gone on to bigger and better things, like getting a book published. But his most important lesson has stayed with me, nearly 20 years later. First day of class, he told us, "Write about anything you want, as long as it isn't abortion, gun control, or evolution. You did all those to death in high school." ...

Abortion. I support a woman's right to choose, for whatever reason, right up until the natural viability of the fetus. That's a variable, but generally around the start of the third trimester. After that point, I am still pro-choice, but only if the mother's life or health is endangered. End of rant, end of debate. You will not change my mind, so don't even try.

Gun Control. "Gun control" means having the skill required to put steel on target. The Founders wanted an armed populous, and they got one. Cool. My position, naturally, extends to issues like must-issue laws for concealed weapons permits. End of rant, end of debate. You will not change my mind, so don't even try.

Evolution. Evolution is a fact – species change over time. The fossil record demonstrates this beyond debate. Evolutionary theories attempt to explain how the fact of evolution occurs. Like all theories, they are subject to scrutiny, falsification, and peer review. No "theory" requiring a god or invisible intelligence or burning sage or nineteen-teated mythical bear can be falsified – and is therefore not science. It also therefore has no place in a science class. End of rant, end of debate. You will not change my mind, so don't even try.

I agree with Mr. Green on all three points. Still, good idea to get the High School students to write about these issues. Likely to get them to actually express an opinion.

Posted by rakhier at 08:23 PM | Comments (0)

August 01, 2005

Some good essays in the Carnival of History...

Here are some good essays found in the Carnival of History.

Islam, Christianity and Reform

unlike Christianity, Islam has nothing analogous to excommunication or walking away from the faith. It is simple to become a Muslim - their simple profession takes less than ten seconds, and can be stated anywhere, anytime. But at least within the eyes of Islam, it is impossible to sever yourself from it. Once you take the pledge, you are bound forever in their eyes. Christianity, at least in theory, has always had the ability to leave the faith. In Islam, it is not even a theory. Once you make the profession of faith, you are Islamic forever, and the priests will always have dominion over you. You may be a heretic or apostate, but you are never beyond the reach of the priests, who understandably consider the cessation of practice as a matter to be urgently addressed. As an outgrowth of this, once an area is Islamic, it must forever more be considered Islamic in their eyes...

Whereas christian doctrine requires a good christian to treat with all persons in good faith so long as they act in good faith, Islam does not. It has only the concept of a grudging truce between believers and non-believers, and this must only be done when there is something to be gained thereby (for instance, the Israelis do not conquer Damascus, Cairo or Baghdad within the next few weeks). In such instances, Islam permits its practitioners to make truce, and even to pretend it is permanent, but not for it actually to be permanent. As spoken by Islamic leaders from the very beginning to the religion and continuing today with every notable modern leader, the only permanent "peace" countenanced by Islam is when all the non-believers have been converted. Check out the translations provided by MEMRI for all of the evidence as to this which you should need. But the truce is exactly that - a breathing space meant to allow the Islamic soldiers time to force a more favorable situation, which they will then use to resolve the conflict in their favor. They are not giving up. Their religion does not permit them to give up.

Bad use of Nazi examples in recent arguements.

In the current (lamentable)state of popular discourse, the only identifiable evil which people are prepared to universally acknowledge as objectively true is Hitler, National Socialism, the Holocaust, etc. All other evil is subjective; i.e. a difference in "values," in the literal Weberian sense. Simply look at one cretinous facet of the debate about terrorism, summed up in the inane, but oddly credible, statement, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter," as if the morality of the tactic, terrorism, is related to the aspiration of the goal, "freedom fighting."

Posted by rakhier at 02:23 PM | Comments (0)