Ambient Irony - Powered by Minx™

June 11, 2005

Geek

The Butler Did It

Had huge problems with my internet connection today. Drop outs, freezes, packet loss, data corruption, you name it. Tried everything. Checked ISP forums, no-one else seems to be having trouble. Disconnected, reconnected. Reset. Powered off. Unplugged the phone. Swapped cables around. Nothing helped. Sometimes it would work fine for, oh, several minutes, before melting down again.

In a final fit of desperation, I swapped my old reliable modem for a new ADSL2 unit I'm supposed to be testing. Of course, that meant I had to configure it from scratch with all my NAT rules and such.

And waddya know, it works. Not sure I'll recommend it though. The modem we currently sell has a wonderful diagnostic feature that tests everything that could possibly go wrong and gives a nice little report. It's an absolute life-saver. "Okay customer person, now click on Diagnostics and tell me what it says... Pass. Pass. Pass. Pass. Fail. Right, that means your password is wrong."

This one doesn't have anything nearly as good.

Meanwhile, somewhere along the line, some episodes of Mahoraba that I was watching last weekend managed to corrupt themselves. That makes me kind of twitchy, because the files were fine when I watched them. Things that make you go urk.

And even after I'd patched them up with Bit Torrent (which is brilliant for that - it checksums the file in 256k blocks and then only downloads the corrupted or missing parts) - even when they were all happy again, WinAmp wouldn't play them. And it did a week ago. Some digging around suggests that it's choking on malformed VBR audio, but it worked a week ago. And Media Player plays the files just fine... And a week ago, Media Player on my computer would crash on startup.

I hate computers.

Um, anyway. Cool toy of the day is Azureus, an extra-nifty Bit Torrent manager written in Java. It's just the thing for downloading your 200 hours of anime a month. It can even show you an animated diagram of all the packets going back and forth between you and the other computers in the swarm. Azureus works particularly well when you aren't suffering 90% packet loss.

And it has a little blue frog. Every computer needs a little blue frog.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 01:54 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 I would blame Bill Gates. Windows is "inadvertently" doing some some truly evil things to non-MS video players, coincidentally (NOT!!) just as they're being forced to unbundle the MS Media Player from Windows in the EU.
My Realplayer has developed a habit of freezing Windows and refusing to do anything but make really nasty blarting/squealing noises when I play some higher-definition files. The really diabolical thing about this is that it totally ignores all device input; NOTHING will undo the freeze and stop the blarting/squealing short of turning off the computer.

Posted by: TallDave at June 11, 2005 02:38 AM (9XE6n)

2 So, if I understood correctly, your connection to the internet stopped working and you switched modems and now it works but you can't watch Mahorba (which I guess is some video thing) but you almost got it fixed, but it doesn't work. The part about hating computers I totally got. Did I understand the rest, too?

Posted by: RP at June 11, 2005 06:38 AM (LlPKh)

3 Yep. Well, I can watch Mahoraba in Windows Media Player, so all is not lost.
Oh, and Mahoraba is a new anime series.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at June 11, 2005 11:56 AM (+S1Ft)

4 I'm willing to bet that you've got "Automatic Update" enabled on Windows, and sometime in the last week Microsoft in their infinite wisdom decided to update something in the system without bothering to tell you about it.

Posted by: Steven Den Beste at June 12, 2005 11:39 AM (CJBEv)

5 I'm willing to be that you're right.
All my important stuff is on Linux, except for video-playing and games, so I let Microsoft patch their bugs whenever they like.
It gets annoying when they also decide to do a remote reboot. I have finally got my Windows box stable, and now Automatic Update is my number one source of unexpected crashes.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at June 12, 2005 01:13 PM (+S1Ft)

6 On a side note, Attack of the Show liked Azureus yesterday.

Posted by: owlish at June 16, 2005 02:17 AM (sBj9U)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

June 08, 2005

Cool

I Can See Your House From Up Here

I'm only posting this in my Cool category because I don't have an Unbelievably Mega-Cool category.

Now, admittedly, I can't quite see my house:

But that doesn't mean -

- that I can't see your house:

(Click on the images to get some idea of how much detail is available.)

World Wind brings the entire planet to your desktop. Currently Windows only; I hope that will change, because everyone should have this.

Thank you, NASA. Umpteen squillion dollars and worth every penny.

(And thanks to bjornart on the mu.nu forums for pointing me to this.) more...

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 11:30 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 That tech has been publicly available for at least six years now. It isn't going to get any finer, I don't think. As it is, a lot of those images are as much as ten years old. You might not be able to find your house because it was built after the image was taken.
We use it here at work for field location and bounding applications. Central Park is a lot more interesting-looking than your average Midwestern section, although some of the Mississippi Delta bottomland has interesting topography - all those bayous make for highly organic satellite maps.
We have at least one grower down in the Delta who's too cheap to properly train their fieldhands in how to use GPS yield monitors, so they tried to use rented satellites for remote-sensing purposes - judging crop yield by satellite. It sort of worked, but struck me as an insane waste of resources. Second-best argument I know of for the elimination of agricultural subsidies - the best argument being that if the growers had less money, they might not be able to afford to wage WWI-grade chemical warfare on pests on their rented goddamn lands.
Delta agribusiness. Bah.

Posted by: Mitch H. at June 09, 2005 12:26 AM (iTVQj)

2 Yeah, I've seen this sort of image (and more detailed ones too) before, but being able to scroll around anywhere in the world and have them pop up is very neat. Doubly so when it's a free program anyone can download.
Unfortunately, there's much less detail available (at least via World Wind) for Australia than for the U.S. It's not just my house I can't see, it's anything smaller than a barn.
As for agriculture subsidies, P. J. O'Rourke said it best I spent two and a half years examining the American political process. All that time I was looking for a straightforward issue. But everything I investigated--election campaigns, the budget, lawmaking, the court system, bureaucracy, social policy--turned out to be more complicated than I had thought. There were always angles I hadn't considered, aspects I hadn't weighed, complexities I'd never dreamed of. Until I got to agriculture. Here at last is a simple problem with a simple solution. Drag the omnibus farm bill behind the barn and kill it with an ax.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at June 09, 2005 12:54 AM (+S1Ft)

3 And when you can scroll from the Asquith Golf Course in northern Sydney (you can see the little lakes I used to walk past on my way to school) to Nagoya and Tokyo and Hokkaido, and then off to see the sand dunes in the Takla Makan desert (which must be enormous) and algal blooms on lakes in the Kunlun Mountains, and scroll scroll and now you're looking at the suburbs of Tel Aviv and scroll scroll Athens and on and on...
I'd love to get the 1 metre resolution data for the whole planet, but this is already a gift beyond price.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at June 09, 2005 01:21 AM (+S1Ft)

4 Google Maps has this now too. I got to see how my lot looked before they built my condo on it a couple years ago.
Very cool.

Posted by: TallDave at June 09, 2005 02:40 AM (9XE6n)

5 How cool. Up to now, I think the only capability was viewing the USA (or maybe North America). At least that's the only one I'd heard of.

Posted by: Ted at June 09, 2005 09:03 PM (blNMI)

6 ya pidoras, pizu chujie doors, zaabuzte moi url - http://greatpharmacies.com/ a suda pishite pisma i spamte - admass@pisem.net

Posted by: ya pidoras at July 25, 2006 09:31 PM (kasrv)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Blog

Senate "Communists": Reynolds

Glenn Reynolds thinks the US Senate is a bunch of communists. "I have here a list of 100 communists in the government", Reynolds said today, a clear reference to the 100-member upper house.

"Fortunately, the blogosphere is more careful", Reynolds added. Yes we are. more...

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 05:11 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Blog

Zimbabwe Pundit

News about the situation in Zimbabwe - from a Zimbabwean.

More also at Samizdata and Belmont Club.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 05:00 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

June 07, 2005

World

Never A-fucking-gain

We had the famines in Ukraine. (7 million dead.) We had the Great Leap Forward in China. (30 million dead.) We had Cambodia. (2 million dead.) And Uganda and Angola and Ethiopia and Somalia. And now it's happening again.

President Robert Mugabe's onslaught against Zimbabwe's cities has escalated to claim new targets, with white-owned factories and family homes being demolished in a campaign that has left 200,000 people homeless.
Across the country, Mr Mugabe is destroying large areas of heaving townships and prosperous industrial areas alike.
The aim of this brutal campaign is, says the official media, to depopulate urban areas and force people back to the "rural home".

If that last paragraph doesn't send a chill up your spine, then you weren't paying attention during the 20th century.

Across Zimbabwe, the United Nations estimates that 200,000 people have lost their homes, with the poorest townships bearing the brunt of Mr Mugabe's onslaught. "The vast majority are homeless in the streets," said Miloon Kothari, the UN's housing representative. He added that "mass evictions" were creating a "new kind of apartheid where the rich and the poor are being segregated".

Yes, Mr Kothari. And what do you plan to do about it?

Earlier, bulldozers had begun wrecking the adjacent industrial area. Ian Lawson, the owner, was assured by a senior police officer that the site would be spared.
But at 6am last Tuesday, 10 lorries filled with police arrived and the destruction began.
"The police officer said to me 'Why are you running for help? No one can help you now. Not even God can help you. We are going to destroy this place'," said Mr Lawson, 60.

God may not be able to help. But a few hundred UN troops could.

If they weren't too busy raping goats.

Virtually all the areas singled out for demolition voted for the opposition Movement for Democratic Change in the last elections. The MDC says that Mr Mugabe ordered the destruction as a deliberate reprisal. But the regime is also seeking to depopulate the cities, driving people into the countryside where the MDC is virtually non-existent and the ruling Zanu-PF Party dominates.
The Herald, the official daily newspaper, urged "urbanites" to go "back to the rural home, to reconnect with one's roots and earn an honest living from the soil our government repossessed under the land reform programme".

Subsistence agriculture - if they are lucky. Mass starvation, more likely.

Again.

Again.

AGAIN.

And this time, no-one can say they didn't know.

(via Tim Blair)

Update: Bob of canadiancomment reminds us that Zimbabwe is on the UN Human Rights Commission.

Burning the homes and businesses of the citizens of your country, forcing many others to leave their homes at gunpoint, and arresting journalists that are trying to cover the event, and that's just in the last week. So what would a country have to do to not be considered for a position on the Human Rights Commission, or is it even possible to be a big enough abuser of human rights that you may not even qualify? I was just wondering.

I'm wondering too. Hell, even the Guardian is wondering:

In April, Zimbabwe was re-elected to the UN Human Rights Commission for the third year running by satirically minded African states...

Gah.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 01:27 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 Paging Walter Duranty, Robert Mugabe has an assignment for you.
Don't worry, the mass starvation will have nothing to do with Zimbabwean gov't action. The problems (which for the most will not exist) will all be caused by poor harvests due to bad weather.

Posted by: TallDave at June 07, 2005 02:46 AM (9XE6n)

2 You are right to bring up the issue, but perhaps you can make some concrete suggestions about what your good readers should do. Sounds like Kolthari, who is simply a reporter to the UN Human Rights Commission is doing all that his mandate permits him to do by raising his voice. Others like you have to run with it.
Those in Australia should check out the suggestions listed at the Zimbabwe Information Centre, an NGO established in NSW. http://www.zic.com.au/action.htm.
Good information is also available at this blog:
http://www.willisms.com/archives/2005/04/mugabes_zimbabw.html.
Mugabe has turned a bread basket into a basket case, and the world has stood idly by. Mugabe plays us all for fools, who will wring our hands at action, but then step up with food relief as he forces his own people into starvation.
Action to remove Mugabe would require a resolution of the UN Security Council; but Mugabe is not threatening his neighbors with WMDs, so the rest of the world prefers not to establish precedents for interfering in the internal affairs of sovereign nations.
The only other decent option is to move to have Mugabe indicted by the International Criminal Court, in the same manner that cases are now being brought against Sudanese leaders.
Although Condoleezza Rice calls Zimbabwe one of the "outposts of tyranny", her words are empty. This Administration has no interest in insisting that the UN Security Council do anything about Zimbabwe. The US, although originally a chief driver of the ICC, now is firmly against the court, and so cannot push the court to take action against Mugabe.
No one else has saw fit to request the Security Council to consider action against Zimbabwe. It seem that the hope has been that Mbeke of South Africa would persuade Mugabe to step down, but whatever "quiet diplomacy" Mbeke has been apply certainly is having no effect.
This is a real hole in the international system, as has been pointed out in this recent discussion in the UK House of Lords: http://skidelskyr.com/index.php?id=2,48,0,0,1,0.
Clearly the world would be better off if the UN were strengthened and given a mandate to act more proactively to deal with regimes such as Zimbabwe, but arguable there are many places where an intervention may be justified, and very few clear criteria to limit the potential scope.
What would you propose?

Posted by: Tokyo Tom at June 07, 2005 03:10 PM (R+EaW)

3 The wonderful thing about Mugabe is that he will be dead soon, and hell, like diamonds, is forever.
I feel sorry for his people, just like I do for those dying of the Arab genocide of Africans in Darfur.
What, you guys didn't hear its Arab militia has been systematically targeting African Christians and Muslims?
That might have something to do with the fact that the media has spent the last two years trying to launch a witch hunt against anyone that might have sneezed near a copy of the Koran in an effort to oust President Bush instead of focusing on the real evils of the world.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at June 07, 2005 03:21 PM (CO4eV)

4 The fundamental problem with the UN is that it doesn't represent people, it represents governments. There are many governments in the world who would be uncomfortable in seeing Mugabe removed, because they could be next. The UN will never be a useful body because of this.
What should be done?
Let's ask instead, what needs to be done, and what solutions would work.
Mugabe is the problem. He needs to be removed.
How, short of war?
I see no way, short of war.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at June 07, 2005 04:15 PM (AIaDY)

5 Confederate Yankee, yes, I'm aware of the atrocities being committed in Sudan. It's just not what I'm upset about today. I can only get upset about so many things at once before my brain goes into a spin and I have to post some more puppy pictures.
What's happening in Zimbabwe upset me particularly because it so closely parallels the appalling humanitarian disasters in China and Cambodia. It's completely predictable, and we are very likely going to sit by and watch.
Do we invade every time some communist fruitcake starts destroying his own country? Is it wise? Is it even possible?
I don't know.
But if we see two million people die over the next five years, knowing we could have prevented it - what then?

Posted by: Pixy Misa at June 07, 2005 04:20 PM (AIaDY)

6 This Administration has no interest in insisting that the UN Security Council do anything about Zimbabwe.
What would you expect the Security Council to do? Given their remarkable action on Iraq...
The US, although originally a chief driver of the ICC, now is firmly against the court, and so cannot push the court to take action against Mugabe.
What would you expect the ICC to do?
Action to remove Mugabe would require a resolution of the UN Security Council
No it wouldn't. It wouldn't require any such thing.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at June 07, 2005 04:26 PM (AIaDY)

7 Zimbabwe isn't exactly heavily armed.
We need to start forming a Coalition of the Willing, with a mandate to hold free elections and protect property rights of the minority farmers who were actually feeding the country. There's no sweetheart oil deals with France or military relationship with Russia, so it shouldn't be hard to do.
And if we don't, millions will die.

Posted by: TallDave at June 08, 2005 01:28 AM (9XE6n)

8 PM:
You say that "the fundamental problem with the UN is that it doesn't represent people, it represents governments. There are many governments in the world who would be uncomfortable in seeing Mugabe removed, because they could be next. The UN will never be a useful body because of this."
I agree with your sentiments; we are looking at a failed world order. However, I still think that the system can be much improved by relatively small changes that leave the big powers in charge.
The obvious solution for many parts of Africa is for the donor countries to empower the UN or its members to administer failed countries like Zimbabwe. Otherwise our aid just enables corrupt leaders to carry on as before.
The UN Security Counsel can authorize action (not a strong case since Mugabe is terrorizing only his own people, not threatening his neighbors), but there is no institutionalized mechanism for "nation-building". But when we see the Bush administration push guys like Boulton to be ambasssodor to the UN, you can see that the US has no apetite for using the UN as a multilateral tool to solve problems like in Zimbabwe, the Sudan or Myanmar.
By the way, another problem here reflects the steady growth of Chinese influence globally, including noticeably in Africa and Zimbabwe, at the expense of the US and its occasional Western allies. Mugabe is a Marxist, and has craftily turned to China for support, as Roger Bales of the American Enterprise Institute pointed out last week in the Weekly Standard: http://aei.org/publications/pubID.22581,filter.all/pub_detail.asp.
We can expect that China would veto any Security Counsel resolution authorizing action against Mugabe.
Zimbabwe, the Sudan, Myanmar and Iraq are all necessary consequences of the fact that the international community is still composed of sovereign countries - each of which prefers to allow bad things happen elsewhere than to take the bull by the horns and tie themselves down to a system that demands more responsibility from each of its members. The big countries could of course protect themselves (and their allies) by allowing a veto at the UN Security Counsel level.

Posted by: Tokyo Tom at June 08, 2005 02:20 PM (R+EaW)

9 The obvious solution for many parts of Africa is for the donor countries to empower the UN or its members to administer failed countries like Zimbabwe. Otherwise our aid just enables corrupt leaders to carry on as before.
Except that the UN is also hopelessly corrupt. I don't see that this will improve anything.
The UN Security Counsel can authorize action (not a strong case since Mugabe is terrorizing only his own people, not threatening his neighbors), but there is no institutionalized mechanism for "nation-building". But when we see the Bush administration push guys like Boulton to be ambasssodor to the UN, you can see that the US has no apetite for using the UN as a multilateral tool to solve problems like in Zimbabwe, the Sudan or Myanmar.
So, your argument is that first, the UN is unlikely to authorise effective action and second, that the US is not interested in trying to work through the UN.
It seems that the second point follows naturally from the first.
We can expect that China would veto any Security Counsel resolution authorizing action against Mugabe.
They've been pulling that crap for sixty years, so duh.
Zimbabwe, the Sudan, Myanmar and Iraq are all necessary consequences of the fact that the international community is still composed of sovereign countries - each of which prefers to allow bad things happen elsewhere than to take the bull by the horns and tie themselves down to a system that demands more responsibility from each of its members.
No.
There are lots and lots of sovereign countries that don't systematically murder, maim or imprison their populations. Not many of them are in Africa, however. Leaders willing to kill their own people aren't going to pay any attention to "international law". They will pay attention to bombs and bullets.
You can't fix this through the UN, because the UN is part of the problem. It's fundamentally and irretrievably corrupt. We have to destroy the UN and start again.
What can fix it? Trade. Free movement of goods, capital, people and information. Freedom makes you rich. The solution to the world's ills is not transnationalism but globalisation.
We might have to shoot some more dictators first. And if that involves ignoring the bleating of France and Germany and the scowls of China, then so be it.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at June 08, 2005 04:14 PM (AIaDY)

10 We should form a new UN open to democracies only; call it the Organization of Democratic States or something. It would have a President elected by a nation-by-nation electoral college (with # of electors based on population) and a legislature similar to the U.S. House and Senate. Prospective members would have to meet guidelines of freedom of the press, real democracy, human rights, etc.
It would have legitimacy, transparency, accountablity, and by God, it would get shit done.

Posted by: TallDave at June 09, 2005 03:17 AM (9XE6n)

11 More proof, as if any were needed, that the UN is useless at best, a true source of evil at worst.
That's why it would be funny, if weren't so infuriating, to hear Senate Democrats, and a few Rebublicans like like crybaby Voinovich, going on and on about what an important posting the UN Ambassador's job is, and how Bolton lacks the diplomatic skill to represent us there, he'll hurt America's reputation around the world, etc, etc. Dont ya just wanna scream - IT'S FULL OF COUNTRIES LIKE ZIMBABWE - WHO CARES WHAT THEY THINK! The UN isn't the answer to anything. We need another coalition of the willing, like one of the above commenters said.

Posted by: Jim O'Sullivan at June 10, 2005 04:11 AM (6+o02)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

June 06, 2005

Life

Baby Aminals

Gratuitous puppy picture:

Little Cafe Mocha is a cocker spaniel / shih-tzu cross. He's one of a litter of five, along with brothers Oreo, Dingo, Jack Jr. and Bob. Picture courtesy of Scarlet on the mu.nu forums.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 01:56 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Blog

Frank Lloyd Wright

vs. the Zombies.

(via Spoons)

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 12:48 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

June 05, 2005

Geek

The Connector Conspiracy

Observation 1:

There are at least three types of DVI connector, even though they all do exactly the same thing. On the other hand, two plug-pack transformers can have exactly the same plug, even though one provides five volts and the other twenty-four.

Observation 2:

Small electronic gadgets are surprisingly resilient in over-voltage conditions. But I still wouldn't recommend doing that.

I was recabling my computers because the space under my ~~dining table~~ desk had turned into something of a R.O.U.S. nest. In the process, I managed to plug my USB hub into the plug pack for my old Logitech wireless keyboard. (Not the new old one, but the old old one.) It survived, assuming that all the lights are supposed to be lit up all the time.

I haven't got my new flashy keyboard working yet. It doesn't seem to like being connected through a USB hub, which will be a problem since I plan to get myself a little KVM switch - one of these; it supports DVI, so there should be no loss of picture quality. But if my keyboard won't work with a USB hub, it probably won't work with a KVM switch either, which kind of defeets the porpoise.*

Meanwhile, my intended new ISP turns out not to provide static IP addresses. I've always had static a IP address, since way back in 1996, so I didn't even think to check.

Damn. That will really screw things up.

* If you ever wondered why porpoises live in the ocean, well, it's because they don't have any feet.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 01:54 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

June 03, 2005

Geek

Gigabytes!

And about bleeding time too. I've been waiting for someone to do this for years. Its so bloody obvious, but the few attempts that have appeared on the market have been absurdly - almost criminally - overpriced.

What?

Oh.

This:

It's a battery-backed RAM disk on a PCI card. The actual interface is SATA, so it works as a standard disk drive without any drivers; the PCI slot just provides the power. The battery is good for about 16 hours, which should cover most power failures, and it looks like it would be easy enough to plug in something beefier if you needed it.

Best part? Well, two best parts. Three.

One, it doesn't come with any memory. In previous cases (the unlamented Platypus Technology cards, for example) you had to buy the card with memory already installed, at a 300% markup, and you couldn't upgrade it later.

Two, it uses ordinary DDR RAM, which is cheap as a very cheap thing at the moment.

Three, $50.

I want at least three of these puppies. And another three for work.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 05:08 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

June 02, 2005

World

What It Isn't

Mark Steyn echoes one of my points on the European constitution:

One of the most unattractive features of European politics is the way it insists certain subjects are out of bounds, and beyond politics. That's the most obvious flaw in Giscard's flaccid treaty: it's not a constitution, it's a perfectly fine party platform for a rather stodgy semi-obsolescent social democratic party. Its constitutional "rights" - the right to housing assistance, the right to preventive action on the environment - are not constitutional at all, but the sort of things parties ought to be arguing about at election time.

Exactly.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 06:23 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 Hey, every country has already taken care of the big important things in their own constitution, so EU-constitution is making the decisions on the small things. They don't dare touch the fundamentals of the countries' law systems, unless they give everyone a good impression from small changes first. EU-constitution is just the beginning of a larger reform of the European legal systems, but now that it died, the reform is delayed 10 years or more, and forming one country out of the Union will also be delayed, because of this trivial guestion of minor law changes.

Posted by: A Finn at June 03, 2005 10:46 PM (lGolT)

2 The EU constitution strkes me as dangerously elitist and anti-democratic. Without direct elections of EU leaders (something the EUlites will NEVER contemplate), there is no accountability.

Posted by: TallDave at June 04, 2005 12:58 AM (9XE6n)

3 Finns have EU-election every four years, so we directly select the ones who go represent us in EU. Dunno if the others already let their parliaments pick theirs, since those guys don't really matter, the voting percentages in EU-elections are usually under 30% anyway. That's why leader selection is going to the parliaments: no one simply cares about who is representing them in Brussels.
And if EU would ever need to get a president to be governmentchooser, that's imbossible because there is no common law, and the starting of the common law has recently died when the Dutch and French said 'nee' and 'non'.

Posted by: A Finn at June 04, 2005 03:07 AM (lGolT)

4 And why should the 30%, the old people who have nothing else to do and always vote for socialists, be any better at choosing representatives than the parliament whole nation picked.

Posted by: A Finn at June 04, 2005 03:12 AM (lGolT)

5 Finn, you say:Hey, every country has already taken care of the big important things in their own constitution, so EU-constitution is making the decisions on the small things. They don't dare touch the fundamentals of the countries' law systems, unless they give everyone a good impression from small changes first. EU-constitution is just the beginning of a larger reform of the European legal systems, but now that it died, the reform is delayed 10 years or more, and forming one country out of the Union will also be delayed, because of this trivial guestion of minor law changes.The problem is, if you ever want to form a single country, your will have to tackle the big things. The smaller things are a matter for the government of the day, not for the constitution. The constitution is for setting the structure of and limits on the government. The branches of government, the houses of parliament, voting procedures (popular and legislative), that sort of thing. Not fishing rights in the Baltic Sea.
The constitution has to change the fundamentals of the law systems of the individual states. Otherwise it's just a trade agreement with delusions of grandeur.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at June 04, 2005 05:45 AM (+S1Ft)

6 The point was small things first, look good when doing those, and then change the bigger things, so no one leaves the Union because of the huge changes for worse they expect to come from sudden massive changes on their whole system of law.
It's like going to the lake for a swim at early summer: If everyone just jumps in right away, the ones who didn't like the temperature will just run into the sauna right away. If you are patient and let them poke their toes in the shallow end first, they get used to the water and don't mind taking a deeper plunge.

Posted by: A Finn at June 04, 2005 06:31 AM (lGolT)

7 The constitution right now won't be the final constitution, trust me. It's just the flat dirt layer below the foundation. They'll make it grow until covers everything important and they have the unified law they were planning.

Posted by: A Finn at June 04, 2005 06:36 AM (lGolT)

8 No, that's backwards.
A constitution, a real constitution, deals with the most important and fundamental rules of government, and nothing else. Read the U.S. constitution, or the Australian one. Both were designed to join a number of independent states into a single nation.
This is what I'm saying, what Mark Steyn is saying: This document is not a consitution.
You seem to be proposing a constituion by stealth, the boiled-frog approach. That's not what they're doing either. Have you read the blasted thing?

Posted by: Pixy Misa at June 04, 2005 12:00 PM (+S1Ft)

9 Yeah, it's bullshit. That kinda justifies making big changes to it. Constitution has to look useless and trivial to get accepted. After it's done, they can do whatever they want with it and not care about public opinion. Also, constitution of Finland was once just a decision about sharing the fishing areas and determining who gets whos stuff when some guy with no relatives dies, so things can start with crap and advance to an acceptably good level.

Posted by: A Finn at June 05, 2005 06:54 AM (lGolT)

10 Oh perhaps I need to read it in English, it might have different interpretations that way.

Posted by: A Finn at June 05, 2005 07:19 AM (lGolT)

11 Oh well, not gonna, since the one in English is 325 Adobe pages. The one in Finnish in bookform was 220 paper ones and included comparisons of the laws into Finnish law, so I think I know enough. I found only about 10 parts that weren't almost exactly the same thing as the Finnish law and jokamiehenoikeus-parts they were compared to. They must've just gone through our law and picked the parts they found interresting and refreshing, creating a mess that people living in crowded places can't understand.

Posted by: A Finn at June 05, 2005 07:41 AM (lGolT)

12 Maybe so. However it came to be, that's exactly the problem. It's not a constitution.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at June 06, 2005 09:55 PM (+S1Ft)

13 ya pidoras, pizu chujie doors, zaabuzte moi url - http://greatpharmacies.com/ a suda pishite pisma i spamte - admass@pisem.net

Posted by: ya pidoras at July 26, 2006 01:27 AM (8M7ix)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

World

The True Gulag

Amnesty International recently completed its spiral into irrelevance when it called Guantanamo Bay "the gulag of our times". Rusty Shackleford has a powerful and disturbing article on the true nature of the gulags:

Ten percent of the entire population of the Soviet Union lived in the camps.
The Gulag administration was the largest single employer in all of Europe.
The average life expectancy of a camp prisoner was one winter.
At least twenty million people perished in the labor camps during Stalinâ€™s rule.

The Red Cross at least had the decency to deny that one of its representatives accused U.S. authorities of being "no better than and no different than the Nazi concentration camp guards" - which suggests that they realise there is a difference.

Will Amnesty International show similar decency? It seems unlikely.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 02:51 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Geek

Encroaching Shininess

I've put in the forms to switch over to my new ISP, iiNet, so sometime next week I will be reduced to using dialup for a couple of days.

Following that, though, I will be running at a zippy up to 8Mbps! That's more than five times what I get at the moment.

But I will have to somehow survive on just 80GB of downloads per month. That's only, what, 200 hours of anime?

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 01:19 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

June 01, 2005

Life

A Dream of Smoke and Sparks

Once upon a time, there were five distinctive national holidays in Australia.

Christmas, of course, the season of eating too much and spending too much. And heatwaves and bushfires.

New Year's Eve, when you got to stay up late (unless you fell asleep on your half-glass of champagne).

Easter. Chocolate! Easter Hat Parade! More chocolate!

Anzac Day, our national remembrance day. (We also observe Armistice Day, but it's not a holiday.)

And Fireworks Day. More formally, the Queen's Birthday (though it actually doesn't occur on her birthday). But to us kids, it meant fireworks. Not big fireworks off in the distance, but fireworks Dad brought home and set off himself. Right there in the garden, while you gathered around in your pyjamas and dressing gowns. Whoosh! Pop! And then off for some hot cocoa, because it's getting chilly by this time of year.

No more. Eighteen years ago the New South Wales state government decided that the people were too stupid to be allowed fireworks, and banned their sale. Miserable pissant nanny-state crapweasels.

I have a dream, a dream of smoke and sparks, a dream that one day we shall rise up and kick the bastards out and take back the right to accidentally burn our eyebrows off every so often.

Who's with me?

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 06:38 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 I am. I'll never forget watching my Dad scramble for his life as yet another firecracker burnt the grass on our front yard. You can't buy those memories.

Posted by: Simon at June 01, 2005 07:40 PM (UKqGy)

2 Hehe, see this is why every nation needs a 2nd Amendment: to put the fear of the citizenry into the gov't.

Posted by: TallDave at June 02, 2005 01:37 AM (9XE6n)

3 Oh, and as a scarred and decorated veteran of many a teen fireworks war, I too am proud to enlist in your cause.

Posted by: TallDave at June 02, 2005 03:06 AM (9XE6n)

4 I'm with you. Sure I'm hiding behind a tree because I've been popped one to many times in the head by a misguided bottle rocket, but I'm with you.
So would I be breaking international laws if we accidentally shipped you a case or two of fireworks?

Posted by: phin at June 02, 2005 03:18 AM (Xvpen)

5 I'm with you. I believe in Social Darwinism, and i know that there is only ONE reason for the "DO NOT PLACE IN MOUTH" warning on fireworks.
(still have my original eyebrows, but victim to SEVERAL arm hair-ectomies via 'Fountains of sparks,' too young for the REAL McCoys. Oh, and Yes, you CAN hold in hand after lighting. Heck, in Japan, it's a rite of passage to manhood to hold onto huge fireworks till the bottom explodes out. Is it bad when the parenthetical is longer than the original comment?)
:-D

Posted by: tommy at June 02, 2005 11:49 AM (OJ+GI)

6 If you think this bad, England is trying to impose... knife control.

Posted by: TallDave at June 02, 2005 02:42 PM (H8Wgl)

7 Yeah, I know. Miserable fuckers. We've had metal knives for 5000 years and stone ones for 30,000 years prior to that, and now they decide we're too dumb to handle them?

Posted by: Pixy Misa at June 02, 2005 03:21 PM (AIaDY)

8 Heh heh heh... I used to have a pyrotechnican's licence. Boom. Heh heh heh...

Posted by: Wonderduck at June 02, 2005 03:24 PM (86QII)

9 Well, here's hoping you can find some at your nearest equivalent indian reservation.

Posted by: Mike Beversluis at June 05, 2005 01:45 AM (SvK3c)

10 What were the ones that used to come in a tube about the size of a tennis-ball can. I seem to remember some idjits pointing them at each other (they had about five or six firework balls that came out one after another). One guy though he had fired all of his and put the tube down at which point the last one flew out and set his (long) hair on fire - spectacular actually.

Posted by: Ozguru at June 05, 2005 11:08 PM (BY/Ur)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

World

A Thing of Beauty

From France:

We French hate the perfidious English. We French have always hated the perfidious English. We French hate the perfidious English for being ... perfidious. And English. And for positively refusing to be invaded by Germans when we French managed it so effortlessly. Twice.

There's more, and it just gets better.

(Via Roger L. Simon)

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 01:10 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

World

History Stood on its Head

This one sentence from that Newsweek article, out of all the nonsense and blather, has been niggling at me:

World War II was fought not just to defeat the Axis powers, but to make the world safe for the United Nations, the precursor to the World Trade Organization, the European Union and other international institutions that would strengthen weaker countries.

It's just so wrong, so irredeemably and inexcusably wrong.

Who were the Axis powers? Primarily, Germany, Italy and Japan. Spain was aligned with them; Hitler and Mussolini lent support to Franco in the Spanish Civil War. There were a number of other minor partners; Finland, for example, aligned itself with Germany because it saw Russia as a graver threat.

What was the war about? Germany, Italy and Japan wanted to secure more land and resources. Germany in Europe; Italy (as a lesser partner) would take the uninteresting bits of Europe (like Albania) and Africa; Japan would take eastern Asia and the Pacific. Look at this handy little map to see what they were up to.

Who opposed them? Well, Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland, early targets during the war in Europe, simply didn't have the military strength to stop the Axis. Japan had already invaded Manchuria in 1931* and was expanding its presence there. There were three powers in the world that posed a significant threat: Britain, particularly the Royal Navy; Russia; and the United States.

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (a non-aggression pact between Russia and Germany) dealt with Russia. Russia was ill-prepared for war at the time, having systematically destroyed the effectiveness of its own army through purges. Britain was more of a problem; the hope there was that it could be isolated until Germany and Italy had consolidated their position in Europe.

As for the United States, the chief plan was not to get them involved in the war. That may sound like a dreadful miscalculation, but in 1935 Congress had passed the Neutrality Act, which prohibited American support for any nation at war. The Act was renewed as late as 1939. American isolationism was in full flower in the 1930's, and the Axis powers were banking on it.

Then, of course, they screwed everything up. With a characteristic combination of paranoia and overconfidence, in 1941 Germany declared war on Russia and Japan declared war on the United States. The two sleeping giants were called into play in the war against the Axis, and after four more years of terrible bloodshed, the Axis was finally crushed.

World War II was entirely about the ambitions of the Axis powers. America wanted only to keep to itself; Britain had its Commonwealth; Russia was in no shape to do anything. Germany, Italy and Japan decided to take over the world. It sounds crazy. It was crazy. Something like 50 million people died for their ambitions.†

I wonder why Newsweek wants us to believe otherwise.

* The League of Nations, the UN of the day, did nothing.
† Estimates vary significantly in many cases.

Footnote: Britannica Online has this appalling bit of doublethink:

Axis Powers
Coalition headed by Germany, Italy, and Japan that opposed the Allied Powers in World War II.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 10:40 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 It's just so wrong, so irredeemably and inexcusably wrong.

I completely agree, but I like the way Wolfgang Pauli put it - "This paper is so bad it is not even wrong."

Posted by: allagash at June 02, 2005 12:01 AM (M5ajh)

2 Oooh! OOOh! I can do it, too! The Franco-Prussian War was fought to make the world safe for the personal computer... The 100 Years War was fought to make the world safe for elevators... The Crusades were fought to make the world safe for a Woman's Right to Choose...
See, it's easy! Pick any war, and then pick any concept that didn't exist yet....

Posted by: Susie at June 03, 2005 07:07 AM (V1YvO)

3 Umm, that handy little map-link was about the situation the war was in when the tides turned and Reich started losing. They were going for world domination...

Posted by: A Finn at June 05, 2005 09:40 PM (lGolT)

4 Finland, for example, aligned itself with Germany because it saw Russia as a graver threat.
Nah, we had just had Winter War with Russia a year ago, so there was no way anyone would have fought on the Russian side. Germans had helped us in military conflicts, so of course we helped them when they asked us to.

Posted by: A Finn at June 05, 2005 09:54 PM (lGolT)

5 Regarding the handy little map link, the US post office published a series of them on the in 1991 through 1995, here.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at June 05, 2005 09:59 PM (+S1Ft)

6 Nah, we had just had Winter War with Russia a year ago, so there was no way anyone would have fought on the Russian side.
True enough. That was a side-effect of the German-Russian non-aggression pact; it left Russia free to attack Finland. You could have fought both, but then you would have lost.
Germans had helped us in military conflicts, so of course we helped them when they asked us to.
Yeah. Only problem with that is that they were completely insane. Still, caught between Germany and Russia, you were pretty much screwed no matter what you did.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at June 05, 2005 10:18 PM (+S1Ft)

7 We did actually fight 'em both, Russians first, then Germans when the bloodless retreating wasn't good enough for Russians demanding to see some Nazi corpses lying around Lapland.

Posted by: A Finn at June 16, 2005 07:44 AM (lGolT)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

May 31, 2005

World

Just Say Non

Out of curiosity, I downloaded a copy of the proposed European Constitution (available here in English; check here for other languages or to read it online).

I skipped the table of contents (five pages) and the preamble and signatories (eight pages). The first two articles, Establishment of the Union and The Union's values are reasonable enough. The fun starts with article I-3.

1. The Union's aim is to promote peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples.

Well, okay. Peace is nice. But is that all you want to do? Promote peace? Hmm.

2. The Union shall offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice without internal frontiers, and an internal market where competition is free and undistorted.

Fine and laudable, this one. That's what I like to see. Not what some of the French political parties want to see (that part about the internal market), but I have no trouble with it. But then:

3. The Union shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress, and a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment. It shall promote scientific and technological advance.

Price stability? A social market economy? Full employment? Social progress?

They're communists. And communism don't work.

Look, you just one paragraph ago said that you wanted an internal market where competition is free and undistorted. If you have that, you can't also have price stability, and you can't guarantee full employment. Those things just don't work together; they're antithetical.

[Update: Commenter Jojo points out that price stability is a term used to refer to zero or very low inflation (a good thing) rather than price controls (a bad thing) as I had assumed. This does somewhat deflate my anti-communist paranoia, but the document is still devotedly socialist and statist. Its prescription for every ill is more government.]

And who gets to define what social progress means?

It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection, equality between women and men, solidarity between generations and protection of the rights of the child.

What an awful jumble of weaselry. Are you trying to say "All men are created equal"? Because I think copyright has expired on the Declaration of Independence. A quick cut-and-paste and you're away.

It shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States.

Well, okay. I mean, if you're going to have a Union, you have to have some sort of cohesion and solidarity going on.

It shall respect its rich cultural and linguistic diversity, and shall ensure that Europe's cultural heritage is safeguarded and enhanced.

Respect is fine. Safeguarding one's heritage is fine, I guess. Enhanced? What? How?

I'll skip some waffle. Article I-4 is a surprise: Short, sweet, right to the point:

Fundamental freedoms and non-discrimination
1. The free movement of persons, services, goods and capital, and freedom of establishment shall be guaranteed within and by the Union, in accordance with the Constitution.
2. Within the scope of the Constitution, and without prejudice to any of its specific provisions, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited.

Good stuff.† If it was mostly like that, I wouldn't mind the occasional outbreak of fluffy-bunnies, like:

The anthem of the Union shall be based on the â€˜Ode to Joyâ€™ from the Ninth Symphony by Ludwig van Beethoven.
The motto of the Union shall be: â€˜United in diversityâ€™.

United in adversity, eh? Oh, sorry.

But we're now on page 20... Of 485. Let's skip ahead a bit:

Article II-70
Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right includes freedom to change religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or in private, to manifest religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
2. The right to conscientious objection is recognised, in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of this right.
Article II-71
Freedom of expression and information
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
2. The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected.
Article II-72
Freedom of assembly and of association
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association at all levels, in particular in political, trade union and civic matters, which implies the right of everyone to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his or her interests.
2. Political parties at Union level contribute to expressing the political will of the citizens of the Union.
Article II-73
Freedom of the arts and sciences
The arts and scientific research shall be free of constraint. Academic freedom shall be respected.

What a lot of blather. Yes, we have those rights. We don't need you to tell us that, because they are rights. Y'know, inalienable and stuff. What you mean to say is this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Those five little words, Congress shall make no law, they go to the heart of the problem. Governments make laws, it's what they do. They don't confer rights, because you can't confer a right. You don't need to list universal rights in the constitution, but what you can do is restrict the lawmaking powers of the government.

Skip skip

Article II-91
2. Every worker has the right to limitation of maximum working hours, to daily and weekly rest periods and to an annual period of paid leave.

Every worker? What if you're on an hourly contract? What if you're a freelancer paid on delivery?

Skip skip

Article III-312
3. Any Member State which, at a later stage, wishes to participate in the permanent structured cooperation shall notify its intention to the Council and to the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs.
The Council shall adopt a European decision confirming the participation of the Member State concerned which fulfils the criteria and makes the commitments referred to in Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol on permanent structured cooperation. The Council shall act by a qualified majority after consulting the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs. Only members of the Council representing the participating Member States shall take part in the vote.
A qualified majority shall be defined as at least 55 % of the members of the Council representing the participating Member States, comprising at least 65 % of the population of these States.
A blocking minority must include at least the minimum number of Council members representing more than 35 % of the population of the participating Member States, plus one member, failing which the qualified majority shall be deemed attained.
4. If a participating Member State no longer fulfils the criteria or is no longer able to meet the commitments referred to in Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol on permanent structured cooperation, the Council may adopt a European decision suspending the participation of the Member State concerned.
The Council shall act by a qualified majority. Only members of the Council representing the participating Member States, with the exception of the Member State in question, shall take part in the vote.
A qualified majority shall be defined as at least 55 % of the members of the Council representing the participating Member States, comprising at least 65 % of the population of these States.
A blocking minority must include at least the minimum number of Council members representing more than 35 % of the population of the participating Member States, plus one member, failing which the qualified majority shall be deemed attained.

And you thought that stuff about cloture and filibusters was bad.

Article IV-437
2. The Treaties on the Accession:
(a) of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland;
(b) of the Hellenic Republic;
(c) of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic;
(d) of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, and
(e) of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic,
shall be repealed.
Nevertheless:
â€” the provisions of the Treaties referred to in points (a) to (d) and set out or referred to in the Protocol on the Treaties and Acts of Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the Hellenic Republic, of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic, and of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden shall remain in force and their legal effects shall be preserved in accordance with that Protocol,
â€” the provisions of the Treaty referred to in point (e) and which are set out or referred to in the Protocol on the Treaty and Act of Accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic shall remain in force and their legal effects shall be preserved in accordance with that Protocol.

You what?

It's not in fact utterly dire, as a plan for a European Union. That surprised me. It's a really lousy constitution, though. Its scope is too broad; it spends far too much time on what can, should, will or may be done instead of what the government cannot do.

Better than I expected, but the French got it right.*

But they're still communists. [Update: Still communists.]

*There, are you happy? I praised the output of a bunch of Eurocrats and the common sense of the French people in one sentence. Now my brain hurts.

† Actually, on second thoughts that's another case of rights inversion. Change it around to a "Congress shall make no law" clause, and you've got it. As it stands, it has the government guaranteeing a right, which is wrong.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 09:15 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 The thing that really annoys me about all this is that you can bet your bottom dollar they are NOT going to consolidate their seats in the UN, WTO, or any other int'l body. Why should the EU get umpteen votes where the US gets one? They want the advantages of unity without the disadvantages.
Sorry, posted this in wrong thread first time.

Posted by: TallDave at June 01, 2005 03:15 AM (9XE6n)

2 "Price stability? A social market economy? Full employment? Social progress?
They're communists. And communism don't work."
hehehe Excellent commentary and analysis...
And you're right, they could have been a heck of alot less verbose if they simply said "Congress shall make no law..." and emphasized what the govt. could NOT do, rather than blurring the boundaries and making the scope so broad as to unavoidably (at least I.M.H.O) invite interpretive trouble.

Posted by: kyer at June 01, 2005 03:37 AM (oY0vI)

3 I don't understand why aiming for price stability is "communist"? They're saying they want economic growth without runaway inflation, which is the policy of pretty much every OECD country. I don't agree with this rhetoric that having a central government bank issuing currency is "communist"; it might not be a pure free market solution, but it's a far cry from actual communism.

Posted by: Jojo at June 01, 2005 03:40 PM (K7kS/)

4 There's a major difference between currency stability and price stability. Keeping inflation low is good economic policy. Keeping prices stable isn't. You can't keep prices stable with a free market, because a free market means that prices shift according to supply and demand. If you want to use government powers to maintain price stability, that's distorting the market, and that's what they just said they wouldn't do.
It's not just that that made me slap the "communist" label on them, though. A pledge of full employment in an election speech is unremarkable. In a constitution it's a red flag... So to speak.
So too the "social market economy". So too the dedication to undefined social progress.
Call them socialist if you prefer, but really it's the same thing.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at June 01, 2005 03:51 PM (AIaDY)

5 Um, and I don't think I said anything about central banks. I'm a centrist, not a big-L libertarian. I have no problem with central banks.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at June 01, 2005 03:52 PM (AIaDY)

6 Europeans have long suffered from delusions of grandeur, so the wordy (yet empty) substanced constitution comes as no real surprise to me. Europe lost her real grandeur centuries ago and a stack of wordy documents cannot bring her back, until the people have a change of attitude.

Posted by: LASunsett at June 01, 2005 03:57 PM (6aOuQ)

7 Sorry, I (wrongly) assumed that you were against central banks because I assumed you were against the concept of monetary policy in general.
In any case, I think you misinterpret what they mean by "price stability". Price stability is a commonly used term to refer to low inflation; Alan Greenspan routinely uses the term in his speeches. It refers to the general level of prices, not the prices of individual products. Check out Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_stability
I think you confuse "price stability" with price controls, such as price floors, ceilings and outright price fixing, which I agree would be a very bad thing and definitely warrant a "communist" label.

Posted by: Jojo at June 01, 2005 04:31 PM (K7kS/)

8 I wouldn't say "centuries ago". Europe had a lot going for it right through the 19th century, even with the various empires diminishing. Two world wars pretty much put paid to that.
You're basically right, though. Europe is living for the past, not for the future. That's evident in the consitution, with its emphasis on protecting Europe's grand heritage.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at June 01, 2005 04:31 PM (AIaDY)

9 It had a brief flash in the 19th century, but as Marxism began to take hold, it killed the entrepeneurial spirit that the early mercantilists produced.
Also, the continent was host to a lot of struggles, revolutions, and petty wars throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, as a prequel to the two world wars. That's not nearly the grandeur of the Bourbons and Hapsburgs.

Posted by: LASunsett at June 01, 2005 04:46 PM (6aOuQ)

10 Jojo - Thanks, it looks like you're right. I'll make a note of that in the post.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at June 01, 2005 08:21 PM (+S1Ft)

11 Good point LA, and that was a primary reason for US isolationism. No one wanted to get involved in another of those interminable European wars.

Posted by: TallDave at June 02, 2005 01:32 AM (9XE6n)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

World

Newsweek, The Other Bit

This is some of what I didn't beat into a pulp the previous time around. The subject today: Foreign Policy.

U.S. leaders have long believed military power and the American Dream went hand in hand.

They have?

I'm not saying you're wrong; after all, America was born out of a war against the British colonial administration. But I would like to see something more than a bald statement.

World War II was fought not just to defeat the Axis powers, but to make the world safe for the United Nations, the precursor to the World Trade Organization, the European Union and other international institutions that would strengthen weaker countries.

No it wasn't. Newsflash: The United Nations was formed after the war. The United Nations had nothing whatsoever to do with the war, and the war had nothing to do with the United Nations.

The war was fought to defeat the Axis powers.

NATO and the Marshall Plan were the twin pillars upon which today's Europe were built.

Um, yes. True.

Today, Americans make the same presumption, confusing military might with right.

What?

If they're making the same presumption, are you saying that they were wrong to remove the Taliban and the Ba'athists? And the Nazis, and the Fascists in Italy, and the military rulers of Japan?

Following European criticisms of the Iraq war, the French became "surrender monkeys."

Say what? The line referring to the French as "Cheese-eating surrender monkeys" comes from a Simpsons episode of 1995. This opinion of the French dates to at least the Second World War, if not earlier.

The Germans were opportunistic ingrates.

They were?

The British (and the Poles) were America's lone allies.

And the Australians. And the Spanish, and the Dutch, and the Danes, and the Japanese, and the Koreans, and the Italians. But hardly more than a dozen other countries apart from those.

Unsurprisingly, many of those listening to Bush's Inaugural pledge last week to stand with those defying tyranny saw the glimmerings of an argument for invading Iran:

Well that makes sense, because the current rulers of Iran are certainly tyrants.

Washington has thus far shown more of an appetite for spreading ideals with the barrel of a gun than for namby-pamby hearts-and-minds campaigns.

Washington was all about namby-pamby hearts-and-minds campaigns, from the end of the Vietnam War right up until some time in 2001.

A former French minister muses that the United States is the last "Bismarckian power"â€”the last country to believe that the pinpoint application of military power is the critical instrument of foreign policy.

Which is sheer nonsense.

America has been for the most part isolationist. It would, by and large, prefer to ignore the world. When the world insists on gaining its attention, however, the results are fairly predictable.

Contrast that to the European Unionâ€”pioneering an approach based on civilian instruments like trade, foreign aid, peacekeeping, international monitoring and international law

Notable for its achievements in... Achievements in... Uh, wait, I'll get it...

or even China, whose economic clout has become its most effective diplomatic weapon.

Yes, because China is such a positive influence in the world.

The strongest tool for both is access to huge markets.

Because heaven forbid they should ever allow free trade.

No single policy has contributed as much to Western peace and security as the admission of 10 new countriesâ€”to be followed by a half-dozen moreâ€”to the European Union.

Well, except for the whole opposing the Communists so they wouldn't take over the rest of Europe bit. I mean, without that there wouldn't be 16 "new" countries to admit to the European Union, but let's conveniently ignore that and imagine that Poland and Hungary and the Czech and Slovak Republics and all those places just suddenly showed up on the map one day.

In country after country, authoritarian nationalists were beaten back by democratic coalitions held together by the promise of joining Europe.

Um, what? You don't think the democratic coalitions might have been motivated by not wanting another five decades of oppression and economic ruin? No?

in the past month European leaders have taken a courageous decision to contemplate the membership of Turkey

A courageous decision to contemplate the membership of Turkey. That's one heck of a dictionary you have there.

where the prospect of EU membership is helping to create the most stable democratic system in the Islamic world.

Out of what? Three? No, hang on, there are two new ones now, aren't there. I wonder how that happened.

When historians look back, they may see this policy as being the truly epochal event of our time, dwarfing in effectiveness the crude power of America.

Or, y'know, not.

The United States can take some satisfaction in this. After all, it is in large part the success of the mid-century American Dreamâ€”spreading democracy, free markets, social mobility and multilateral cooperationâ€”that has made possible the diversity of models we see today.

Translation: Thank the Americans that you're not all speaking German, Japanese or Russian.

This was enlightened statecraft of unparalleled generosity.

No it wasn't. It was a horrific war followed by a decades-long standoff.

But where does it leave us? Americans still invoke democratic idealism. We heard it in Bush's address, with his apocalyptic proclamation that "the survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands."

Apocalyptic proclamation? Are you completely insane? What he said was that no country stands alone, and that our freedom is under threat while others suffer oppression. You have a problem with that?

But fewer and fewer people have the patience to listen.

And are impoverished thereby.

Headlines in the British press were almost contemptuous: DEFIANT BUSH DOES NOT MENTION THE WAR, HAVE I GOT NUKES FOR YOU and HIS SECOND-TERM MISSION: TO END TYRANNY ON EARTH.

"Almost" contemptuous? How about openly contemptuous. I mean, ending tyranny on Earth, what a moron.

Has this administration learned nothing from Iraq, they asked?

What would you have us learn? That the French and the Russians cannot be trusted? Hey, we knew that.

The failure of the American Dream has only been highlighted by the country's foreign-policy failures, not caused by them.

Failure of the American Dream?

Last time I checked, America was still there.

Foreign-policy failures? What? Where?

The true danger is that Americans do not realize this, lost in the reveries of greatness, speechifying about liberty and freedom.

You are completely insane.

Reveries of greatness? Reveries? America, who provided aid to tsunami victims by parking a spare carrier group off their shore, providing fresh water and medical care and flight facilities. That America?

You accuse America of "speechifying about liberty and freedom". America, that is right now this minute fighting to preserve freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan. America that still has troops defending Germany and Japan and South Korea.

Speechifying? No. That I'll leave to France and to the United Nations. President Bush doesn't speechify. He says what he is going to, and then he does it.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 05:18 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Posted by: TallDave at June 01, 2005 03:14 AM (9XE6n)

2 Ignore above, wrong thread.
U.S. leaders have long believed military power and the American Dream went hand in hand.
It's so easy to forget, as this person apparently has, that America really had no military to speak of when we were dragged into WW II. That's why Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany thought we would be easy to defeat: in their eyes we were a weak, decadent nation.

Posted by: TallDave at June 01, 2005 03:24 AM (9XE6n)

3 This has got to be one of the best fiskings (is that
right word?) I have ever read. This site is definately now a daily read.
Skip Christy
Lake Oswego, OR (USA)

Posted by: CNC at June 01, 2005 03:31 AM (fpVgk)

4 The failure of the American Dream
lost in the reveries of greatness
Here's a useful link in combatting this kind of insanity.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html
speechifying about liberty and freedom
Now, what do all those countries in the top third or so have in common? They're rich and free because of America's commitment to liberty and freedom.

Posted by: TallDave at June 01, 2005 03:34 AM (9XE6n)

5 Also interesting: Iraq led the world in GDP growth in 2004. Now, they did start from a very low level, but 50% is still amazing growth, esp for a period that the media keep describing as getting worse.

But the real underreported economic story of the last 5 years is Eastern Europe. It seems like every country is growing at around 5%. China gets all the headlines, but China is still much poorer per capita and has serious weaknesses in financial infrastructure.

Posted by: TallDave at June 01, 2005 03:41 AM (9XE6n)

6 You know, it's funny about that "Namby-pamby hearts-and-minds stuff"
As far back as i can remember, that comes from an old special forces slogan, "Grab 'em by the balls and their hearts and minds will follow."
I wonder if that's the first etymology.
Certainly the most straightforward (and via Occam, the correct) one.

Posted by: tommy at June 01, 2005 11:27 AM (OJ+GI)

7 Heh. Maybe he meant "namby-pamby hearts-and-flowers".

Posted by: Pixy Misa at June 01, 2005 11:58 AM (AIaDY)

8 It's so easy to forget, as this person apparently has, that America really had no military to speak of when we were dragged into WW II.
America was deeply isolationist in the 1930's. I've touched on this in my latest post. The Axis still planned more on avoiding conflict with America than defeating it, and they certainly weren't planning on what actually happened.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at June 01, 2005 12:35 PM (AIaDY)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

World

Readers Write

Tokyo Tom has asked some questions regarding my recent Newsweek post that I think deserve a serious answer. He writes:

PM, do you see no serious issues in Andrew Moravcsik's "Dream on America" piece that merit discussion, or is everything a zero-sum game with you?

I think the article is a serious issue. My problem with it is that it's not an examination of anti-Americanism but an excercise in anti-Americanism. The former is worthwhile; the latter not.

I'm not sure what you are referring to with is everything a zero-sum game with you? The answer is no, but I don't know if that addresses your intended question.

I had thought it was a fairly accurate report of the perception of the declining importance and influence of the US in the world â€“ so that what I found disappointing was not so much the content of the essay, but rather Newsweekâ€™s decision not to run it in the US.

I have two main problems with this, which may not be easily distinguishable to those not familiar with my views.

The first is on anti-Americanism. It's a real issue, and it's worth examining, but it's uniformly irrational and counterfactual. That is, when it's based on facts, it's not logical, and when it's logical, it's not based on facts.

The second was with the article itself, which rather than simply examining anti-Americanism, is anti-American itself. And since anti-Americanism is irrational and counterfactual, that was reflected in the article.

Do you disagree as a factual matter either with (i) the perception abroad of a slipping US lead, coupled with rising disenchantment with/active opposition to US policies, especially post-9/11

I don't know that there's a perception abroad of a slipping US lead (in what?) There's certainly disenchantment with and opposition to US policies. That has been true for 229 years. What we see today is not the worst of it.

or (ii) the long decline in our relative economic dominance post-WWII as Asia, Europe and Latin America grow?

I would bloody well hope that US economic dominance had declined since World War II.

World War II basically destroyed Europe and Japan, and caused massive destruction in Russia, China and elsewhere in Southeast Asia. America threw huge amounts of manpower and resources into winning the war, but its infrastructure was essentially undamaged. The war wiped away any lingering traces of the Great Depression in America, but it took a long time for Europe and Asia to rebuild.

What's more, America has 5% of the world's population, but accounts for over 20% of production. That this proportion is decreasing doesn't mean that the US is declining in real terms, just that the rest of the world is starting to get its act together.

What does the CIA Factbook or other statistics tell you about the changes in the share of the US in the global economy from 1935 to 2005? If these are indeed trends, is there a reason to be alarmed about either of them?

No. The trends are positive. The US economy continues to grow. The economies of some poorer countries are growing faster; that's good. Their growth will slow as they become richer and gains in productivity become harder to achieve. That happens to everyone.

Should we not be concerned with the antipathy towards the US in the rest of the world?

Frankly, I'm more interested in whether Fox will revive Futurama than the antipathy of the rest of the world to the US.

What I am dedicated to is getting good, reliable information out there, and a balance of opinion. That's a large part of the reason I run mu.nu. Too many countries live inside bubbles, I'd like to pop a few of them.

Do you see no trade-offs as the US spends huge sums (a signifcant amount borrowed against sharply cut federal revenues) on the military (including extravagant boondoggles such as missile defense, unsettling technologies such as tactical nukes, and nation-building in Iraq), while other countries are investing directly in productive industry?

No, of course there are no trade-offs. Everything's a win!

Sorry, my sarcasm got the better of me there.

In order:

The US military allowed intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq, with a standing, peace-time, all-volunteer military, with great success and minimal losses. That's a good thing.

Missile defense is hardly a boondoggle with nations like Iran and North Korea looking to lob nukes at anyone they dislike. You'd be foolish not to be investigating missile defense at this point.

Unsettling technologies such as tactical nukes? You have something of a point there. Nuclear weapons are taboo; their use is all but unthinkable. Tactical nukes would weaken that taboo, and if your number one priority is preventing the use of nuclear weapons, that would be a bad thing. I think, though, that this has to be balanced against the intended purpose of tactical nukes - bunker busters to destroy ABC (atomic/biological/chemical) warfare facilities in rogue states.

Other countries are investing in productive industry? Why, so is America. At the same time as acting as the world's policeman and planning a moonbase and a manned expedition to Mars and a billion and one other things.

It is more than simply disappointing that our invasion of Iraq has drawn no where near the level of burden-sharing that the US was able to secure in the cases of the first Gulf War and the action against Serbia.

Right. But we need to examine the reasons for this. The liberation of Iraq was the right thing to do. Opposing it was wrong. We want to know why people opposed it. Most of the reasons given, however, are irrational and counterfactual.

Reflexive self-justification and denial are understandable, but do not help us to deal with real problems.

Which is why I don't engage in such things.

Just so you know, Tom, I'm Australian.

The US is facing a critical task to stem and reverse the serious decline in relative power that the US is now experiencing as investment and power flow to the growing economies of Asia, Europe and Latin America

Why?

Why is this a critical task?

as the Newsweek article points out so well.

I can't see that the Newsweek article pointed out any such thing.

Our place in the world will soon be much diminished, and we refuse to get our own house in order - enormous budget and trade deficits, declining technical and science skills, a frayed social support network, accelerating disparities in wealth (see David Brooke`s op-ed in today`s Times), you name it.

The budget and trade deficits are a real, if long-term problem.

I'm not at all convinced there are declining technical and science skills. I don't see American research and engineering suffering at all.

I don't see a particularly frayed social support network either. And I don't see wealth disparities as a problem, as long as both rich and poor are improving their lot, and as long as there is opportunity for improvement, something America has always been very good at.

We face a growing dependence on imported oil but have no cogent energy policy (which should include pricing to cover defense and environmental costs).

America should be building more nuclear power plants, including breeder reactors. The present administration seems inclined to push in that direction, which is a good thing.

What a mess we are handing off to our children, who will have to foot the bills and the poorer America that we seem to be willing to settle for!

And again, the present administration seems willing to address issues such as the unsustainable nature of the Social Security system.

Many global issues cry out for US leadership, but we refuse to accept that mantle in favor of unilateralism.

Many global issues do indeed cry out for US leadership, but what nations are willing to accept that leadership? Unilateralism (the old go-it-almost-alone route) is not something America chose; it was imposed by the intransigence of other nations.

The Adminstration, Congress and big business are fiddling while Rome burns (see Tom Friedmanâ€™s op-ed in Fridayâ€™s Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/25/opinion/25friedman.html?th&emc=th). It is a real disappointment that the Republican party is not making a serious attempt to revitalize and strengthen the US economy, but is instead sapping our competitiveness with outrageously irresponsible budget deficits (in which the roles of tax cuts and our grossly expanded and unfunded military budget must be acknowledged).

I started reading the Thomas Friedman piece. He begins by criticisng companies for not demanding enough government money (in various forms). That's not the solution we're looking for.

In fact, I'm not sure what Friedman is proposing. Subsidies for industry? Protectionism? No, he seems to be pushing for trade agreements. But some sort of government intervention. What? And why? And how is that supposed to help? He seems to think that the government should shoulder the burden of GM's health insurance. Why? Why not let GM cut its health care plan, or failing that, go broke?

Budget deficits are a problem. They're hardly uncommon during wars, but long term, they need to be fixed. Expanding social programs and subsidising business isn't the road to a balanced budget.

I'll note that Australia has been running budget surpluses for years, to the point that government debt is expected to be fully paid by next year. On the other hand, we don't have anything like America's military expenses - even proportionally - because America is shouldering that burden.

While responsible for what still is the largest economy and most important country in the world, the Administration seems to be doing all it can to make sure that voters don't hear any bad news.

Um, in what way?

The administration doesn't run the media, you know.

While there may well be room to criticize the Newsweek piece, it is unfortunate that the blog discussion has ignored the real substantive issues raised by the article, but focussed instead on perceived slights to the flag and the â€œmotivesâ€ of Newsweek.

I don't see any substantive issues raised by the Newsweek article, I'm afraid.

While I fault Newsweek for selling America short by deciding not to run the piece in the US, sadly this decision seems to reflect ironically one point of the article - that in fact most of Newsweek US readers would rather hear about the Oscars, than to be forced to face unpleasant facts about our declining global position.

The problem is the Newsweek article doesn't address the declining global position of the US, if such a thing is happening in any meaningful way. Rather, it addresses and engages in antipathy towards the US. That's not productive, not in any way.

But then I suppose it is too much to expect, if our Administration, Congress and business leaders are not willing to talk about serious issues, that our press would show it has real balls.

Once again, the Newsweek piece does not raise serious issues.

It's not a question of balls, it's a question of relevance.

Can we have a real discussion of our slipping economic position, or do we all find it easier to shoot the messenger? I look forward to some enlightenment.

We can have a real discussion, sure. But first, you have to establish what you mean by "our slipping economic position" in the context of an economy that is growing faster than almost any other first-world nation. That the global economy grew by 4.9% in 2004 compared to America's 4.4% is cause for celebration, not despondency.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 02:21 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 Great post. It's surprising how few people understand that a relative decline in comparative rate of growth is not a decline in absolute terms, and that because economics is a positive-sum game, better growth in other countries benefits us too (new markets).

What I am dedicated to is getting good, reliable information out there, and a balance of opinion. That's a large part of the reason I run mu.nu. Too many countries live inside bubbles, I'd like to pop a few of them.
Too true. Something that is never mentioned in these articles that bemoan how "unpopular" America has become is that 90% of anti-Americanism is firmly rooted in ignorance, and the other 10% is counterfactual Chomskyite sophistry. I noted an especially virulent and telling example of this phenomenon here.

Posted by: TallDave at June 01, 2005 02:07 AM (9XE6n)

2 PM: Many thanks for your responses to my questions; I have honored them with a little more research. I'd appreciate your further views.
I'm not quite sure how to format my follow-up to your comments, so forgive me if this is rather unwieldy. I have bracketed my counter-comments and started them with TT.
May 31, 2005
Readers Write
Tokyo Tom has asked some questions regarding my recent Newsweek post that I think deserve a serious answer. He writes:
PM, do you see no serious issues in Andrew Moravcsik's "Dream on America" piece that merit discussion, or is everything a zero-sum game with you?
PM: I think the article is a serious issue. My problem with it is that it's not an examination of anti-Americanism but an excercise in anti-Americanism. The former is worthwhile; the latter not.
I'm not sure what you are referring to with is everything a zero-sum game with you? The answer is no, but I don't know if that addresses your intended question.
[TT: PM, I was concerned that your primary focus might be on defending your mental â€œmapâ€ of reality; in other words, â€œwinningâ€. I appreciate the time you spent responding to my earlier post, but it seems to me that you have spent more time avoiding or downplaying inconvenient facts than seriously addressing them.
Yes, Andrew Moravcsik is in part expressing his opinion, but your labelling it as â€œanti-Americanâ€ deliberately turns attention away from the underlying messages, even though you grudgingly acknowledge the gist of them in the rest of your responses. I think these messages should hardly be news:
l that while America still harbors an image of itself as a beacon to the world, that image is viewed as quite a bit tarnished outside the US, in part because of perceived serious deficiencies with the â€œAmerican Dreamâ€,
2 that while America is â€œlost in the reveries of greatness, speechifying about liberty and freedom,â€ others see an â€œimperial America relentlessly pursuing its narrow national interests,â€ with â€œthe anti-Bushism of the president's first term is giving way to a more general anti-Americanism,â€
3 that the relative economic importance of the US in the world is declining, along with the willingness of others to follow the foreign policy â€œleadâ€ of the US,
4 that while the US remains for now the sole military superpower, our willingness to use that â€œhardâ€ military power unilaterally has contributed to a rapid decline in our soft influence over the rest of the world, so much so that a strikingly large percentage of our traditional allies, who are more inclined to multilateralism, see the US as a threat to world peace, and, finally
5 that Americans in general are unaware of the changes in how the rest of the world regards the US.
When Moravcsik calls this situation dangerous, I believe he was writing for a US audience, as I understand he was also surprised that Newsweek did not run his piece in the US. While I have a slightly different view from Tokyo, I believe that it is important for the US to grapple with these messages, which relate to clear and significant changes in the international order, even if we may take issue with the â€œfairnessâ€ of the perceptions of our traditional allies, China, the Muslim world or Latin America.
William Greider recently noted, â€œAmerican leadership has â€¦ become increasingly delusionalâ€”I mean that literallyâ€”and blind to the adverse balance of power accumulating against it.]
I had thought it was a fairly accurate report of the perception of the declining importance and influence of the US in the world â€“ so that what I found disappointing was not so much the content of the essay, but rather Newsweekâ€™s decision not to run it in the US.
I have two main problems with this, which may not be easily distinguishable to those not familiar with my views.
The first is on anti-Americanism. It's a real issue, and it's worth examining, but it's uniformly irrational and counterfactual. That is, when it's based on facts, it's not logical, and when it's logical, it's not based on facts.
[TT: If anti-Americanism is a real issue worth examining, why donâ€™t you do so?]
The second was with the article itself, which rather than simply examining anti-Americanism, is anti-American itself. And since anti-Americanism is irrational and counterfactual, that was reflected in the article.
[TT: Clearly Moravcsikâ€™s article reports on views from abroad, which merit discussion. I would hope you would acknowledge that the fact of reporting on unfavorable views from abroad is not anti-American.
The article also reflects an own opinion that perhaps some of the views of those outside the US may be correct, that American society and foreign policy are in fact not working so well, and that there are aspects of other societies that compare favorably to the US. Well, I would have to say that IMHO, there are many things wrong with the US, and I would suppose that you and any of your readers could critique various aspects of the US as well. I might be an idiot, and you might disagree with Moravcsikâ€™s views, but that doesnâ€™t make either you, me or Moravcsik anti-American. So letâ€™s stick to the issues.]
Do you disagree as a factual matter either with (i) the perception abroad of a slipping US lead, coupled with rising disenchantment with/active opposition to US policies, especially post-9/11
I don't know that there's a perception abroad of a slipping US lead (in what?) There's certainly disenchantment with and opposition to US policies. That has been true for 229 years. What we see today is not the worst of it.
[TT: Okay, so we have some grudging acceptance of the message. I would think you would have to acknowledge that the â€œdisenchantment with and opposition to US policiesâ€ have risen very dramatically since GWB first took office. It is precisely because we canâ€™t unilaterally force our will on the rest of the world that we need to be concerned about our declining ability to persuade others to work with us. Why is this not worth talking about?
As to what weâ€™re losing the lead in, I think you could probably list quite a few items. A few that come to mind for me are economic predominance, science & technology, private R&D, patent applications, and sophisticated manufacturing.
Moravcsik, however, makes the general point that much of the rest of the world no longer looks up to the US and has lost faith in â€œthe American modelâ€”political, economic, diplomaticâ€. Among others, Moravcsik indicates that the US is not seen as a leader on issues such as privacy protection, social protections, social mobility, opportunity and inequality, incarceration rates, child-poverty rates, and that the US seems to have turned away from multilateral cooperation (where we once led the world on issues such as global warming, control of land mines and small arms, and international courts).
He gets support on this perspective from many others; see this recent article by Joe Stiglitz: http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050406/democracy_starts_at_home.php.
or (ii) the long decline in our relative economic dominance post-WWII as Asia, Europe and Latin America grow?]
I would bloody well hope that US economic dominance had declined since World War II.
World War II basically destroyed Europe and Japan, and caused massive destruction in Russia, China and elsewhere in Southeast Asia. America threw huge amounts of manpower and resources into winning the war, but its infrastructure was essentially undamaged. The war wiped away any lingering traces of the Great Depression in America, but it took a long time for Europe and Asia to rebuild.
What's more, America has 5% of the world's population, but accounts for over 20% of production. That this proportion is decreasing doesn't mean that the US is declining in real terms, just that the rest of the world is starting to get its act together.
[TT: Why do you dodge the issue and ramifications of the long decline in US economic dominance? Even while our economy has continued to grow, the fact that the rest of the world has been catching up means that the US has steadily less influence. The rest of the world no longer see itself beholden to us, in the way it once was. In particular, the collapse of the USSR as a superpower has made the US nuclear deterrent and NATO less relevant in Europe; Russian is perceived as much less of a threat, so we see a tendency for Europe to define itself in opposition to the US. We have little leverage over China, India and Brazil, which are all growing in economic strength and influence. In fact, the US is now competing with China for energy and mineral resources all over the world, including Canada and Latin America.
What does the CIA Factbook or other statistics tell you about the changes in the share of the US in the global economy from 1935 to 2005? If these are indeed trends, is there a reason to be alarmed about either of them?]
No. The trends are positive. The US economy continues to grow. The economies of some poorer countries are growing faster; that's good. Their growth will slow as they become richer and gains in productivity become harder to achieve. That happens to everyone.
[TT: Do you really think everything is so peachy keen? The consequence of these changes is the US losing power and influence, and even though we remain for the time being the sole superpower we can no longer as easily bear all of the expense and responsibilities that role entails.
Our focus on the military undermines our long-term economic strength, and our insistence on using military force to achieve foreign policy objectives is in defiance of our actual capabilities and has the perverse effect of making our goals more difficult to achieve.
Should we not be concerned with the antipathy towards the US in the rest of the world?]
Frankly, I'm more interested in whether Fox will revive Futurama than the antipathy of the rest of the world to the US.
[TT: Iâ€™m with you on Futurama; but have learned to live without it after moving to Tokyo (no Fox).
I understand where youâ€™re coming from â€“ I rather not care what anyone else thinks about us either. But the truth is that not only does it matter, but matters greatly, what the rest of the world thinks of the US. We cannot unilaterally impose democracy at the point of the gun throughout the rest of the world. We have to work with others to realize our agenda. I suppose that it is in recognition of this reality that the Bush administration calls the autocrats of Russia, Pakistan, Uzbekistan and the Sudan our â€œfriendsâ€.]
What I am dedicated to is getting good, reliable information out there, and a balance of opinion. That's a large part of the reason I run mu.nu. Too many countries live inside bubbles, I'd like to pop a few of them.
[TT: Your professed goals are right on - sounds like youâ€™d like to write articles like Moravcsikâ€™s! I agree with you about bubbles, but the sad fact is that everywhere it makes people feel good to live inside their own bubbles, and they would really much rather that others do not do them the favor of popping them.
Do you see no trade-offs as the US spends huge sums (a significant amount borrowed against sharply cut federal revenues) on the military (including extravagant boondoggles such as missile defense, unsettling technologies such as tactical nukes, and nation-building in Iraq), while other countries are investing directly in productive industry?]
No, of course there are no trade-offs. Everything's a win!
Sorry, my sarcasm got the better of me there.
In order:
The US military allowed intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq, with a standing, peace-time, all-volunteer military, with great success and minimal losses. That's a good thing.
Missile defense is hardly a boondoggle with nations like Iran and North Korea looking to lob nukes at anyone they dislike. You'd be foolish not to be investigating missile defense at this point.
Unsettling technologies such as tactical nukes? You have something of a point there. Nuclear weapons are taboo; their use is all but unthinkable. Tactical nukes would weaken that taboo, and if your number one priority is preventing the use of nuclear weapons, that would be a bad thing. I think, though, that this has to be balanced against the intended purpose of tactical nukes - bunker busters to destroy ABC (atomic/biological/chemical) warfare facilities in rogue states.
Other countries are investing in productive industry? Why, so is America. At the same time as acting as the world's policeman and planning a moonbase and a manned expedition to Mars and a billion and one other things.
[TT: Before addressing your individual points, let me point out that unfortunately there is no free lunch, but instead that little matter of the tradeoffs ... .
It was a great help to the Japanese and Europeans in catching up with us that they could spend much less of their GNP on defense, thanks to the US. However, our enormous defense expenditures continue to be a significant drag on investment in productive industry, and to undercut our competitive position. Aside from some Keynesian pump-priming, defense expenditures generally just donâ€™t provide the same bang as a buck spend on manufacturing-related R&D. There is a real cost to military spending with respect to our future competitiveness.
As for Iraq, we have created a hydra-headed monster. What was the wisdom in the Iraq adventure? While Saddam had nothing to do with Al Qaeda, we have certainly been heaping fuel onto bin Ladenâ€™s terror agenda. Further, as Paul Craig Roberts recently noted, â€œthe US has proven to the world that it cannot occupy Baghdad, much less Iraq.â€ A few thousand insurgents have succeeded in tying down 8 US divisions, and the bulk of the US force in Iraq is engaged in protecting its own bases and supply lines. As Robert F. Ellsworth, vice chairman of the Nixon Center and Dimitri K. Simes, president of the center and co-publisher of the journal. In an editorial headlined 'Realism's Shining Morality,' they wrote: 'Overzealousness in the cause of democracy (along with a corresponding underestimation of the costs and dangers) has led to a dangerous overstretch in Iraq,'
While missile defense may sound good in theory, in practice it IS a boondoggle that provides no practical value against North Korea, and a huge waste of funds that could be better deployed to protect America against terror (see Fred Kaplanâ€™s ongoing series of articles in Slate). Missile defense consumed $10.7 billion of the 2004 military budgetâ€” triple the 2003 amount and far more than any other weapon system. About $80 billion has been spent on it so far and another $80 billion is scheduled to be spent before the decade is out. It is nowhere near to working; although a number of missile interceptors have been â€œdeployedâ€, in the last test we didnâ€™t even get a launch, and the system can easily be beaten if the offensive missiles are MIRVed, decoyed, or simply outnumber the much more expensive interceptors. Former Pentagon testing chief Phillip Coyle has ripped the program: http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001068.html.
I see youâ€™re with me on tactical nukes; this is a real concern. Although President Bush is trying to persuade "rogue regimes" and other nations to forgo their nuclear ambitions, the Administration is shoveling money to U.S. nuclear weapons laboratories at more than $6 billion per year â€“ 50% more in real dollars than the average when the Soviet Union existed and the Cold War still raged. What justifies this expense, in the face of other priorities? The US has also refused to comply with our NPT treaty obligation to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and has announced a preemptive strike policy. These policies appear counterproductive; clearly the North Koreans and possibly the Iranians are much further down the road toward possession of nuclear weapons than four years ago (neither country, by the way, is in violation of the NPT), and Muslim Pakistan, which has nukes, has become increasingly fundamentalist. At the same time, the Administration has underfunded the program designed to lock-down the thousands of poorly controlled nuclear warheads scattered across Russia, which pose the greatest terrorist risk to the US. Do we have our priorities right?
As for investment, the Defense Department's combined budgets for the four years since Bush took office amount to $1.5 trillion. This is more money per year than we spent and the height of the Cold War and Vietnam.]
It is more than simply disappointing that our invasion of Iraq has drawn no where near the level of burden-sharing that the US was able to secure in the cases of the first Gulf War and the action against Serbia.
Right. But we need to examine the reasons for this. The liberation of Iraq was the right thing to do. Opposing it was wrong. We want to know why people opposed it. Most of the reasons given, however, are irrational and counterfactual.
[TT: Youâ€™ve just proved Moravcsikâ€™s point â€“ the US now has to care about what everyone else thinks. The war in Iraq is proving fabulously expensive, and we have no idea when it will be over. While we had the support of our allies in ousting the Taliban from Afghanistan (shared agreement about dealing with the threats posed by al-Qaeda), we are bearing the burden ($ and lives) in Iraq virtually alone. The US literally cannot afford to repeat this (besides already finding ourselves stretched thin militarily).]
Reflexive self-justification and denial are understandable, but do not help us to deal with real problems.
Which is why I don't engage in such things.
Just so you know, Tom, I'm Australian.
[TT: TouchÃ©. Sounds like you agree with Andrew â€“ to deal with real problems we need our good friends to help us get past our self-justification and denial!
To be fair, self-justification and denial are part of human nature and a necessary concomitant of normal brain function (which is fascinating reading). To deal with heavy incoming streams of information, an essential part of brain function is to filter out, downplay or dismiss dissonant information. As a result we have to consciously struggle to face up to the difficult task of updating and reworking our mental maps. (This seem to be a brain hard-wiring issue; you might perhaps have heard of conditions such as anosognosia, where a stroke that damages a particular region of the right cortex â€“ apparently crucial to the mental map adjustment mechanism â€“ leaves the victim unable to consciously acknowledge that the left side of his body is paralyzed? http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=817.) We can see the implications in political discourse, where it seems most time is spent in vociferous defense of oneâ€™s own reality model, and little in exploring whether someone else might have a point that might require reflection and consideration. Yes, I try to look in the mirror every now and then too.]
The US is facing a critical task to stem and reverse the serious decline in relative power that the US is now experiencing as investment and power flow to the growing economies of Asia, Europe and Latin America
Why?
Why is this a critical task?
[TT: Huh? If we donâ€™t get focussed and start getting our house in order, the US will have even less influence in the world. If thatâ€™s what youâ€™d prefer, then I suppose you might not view it as a critical task. Have you taken a look at â€œMapping the Global Future,â€ the recent report by National Intelligence Council, the CIA's think tank?
www.cia.gov/nic/NIC_globaltrend2020.html.
as the Newsweek article points out so well.]
I can't see that the Newsweek article pointed out any such thing.
[TT: Youâ€™re right; I got carried away and attributed to the article some heft it didnâ€™t deserve. The point is my own, along with a whole bunch of other people. See some of these:
http://www.gao.gov/cghome/intergovchallenge.pdf
http://tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=2259
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2042/P320/
http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/charting/2005/0 0302.html
Paul Craig Roberts recently summarized the situation: â€œThe US Treasury is empty. The once â€˜almightyâ€™ dollar is tottering. The US military is stretched to the breaking point. Former allies look askance at America. Hatred of America has reached an all time high. The Bush administration must bring its policies in line with its means before it leads our country into greater disaster.â€
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8051.htm.]

Our place in the world will soon be much diminished, and we refuse to get our own house in order - enormous budget and trade deficits, declining technical and science skills, a frayed social support network, accelerating disparities in wealth (see David Brooke`s op-ed in today`s Times), you name it.
The budget and trade deficits are a real, if long-term problem.
[TT: Glad you see that the twin deficits as a real problem, but they have very important short-term implications for the USâ€™s global power. US ambitions are heavily mortgaged and the US financial position is rapidly deteriorating, due mainly to America's persistent and growing trade deficit. Our current hegemony is unsustainable.
The US trade deficit hit a record $666 billion in 2004. The US now requires capital imports of at least $2 billion per day to pay for governmental expenditures. This is about 80 percent of the net flow of international capital. Any decision by Asian central banks to move significant parts of their foreign exchange reserves out of the dollar and into other currencies in order to protect themselves from dollar depreciation could produce a meltdown of the American economy. (Japan possesses around $841 billion in foreign exchange reserves; China has $610 billion pile of U.S. cash).
The Administration now sees a 2005 budget deficit of $427 billion. While only a few years ago we enjoyed substantial federal surpluses and were making inroads into public debt, over the first four years of the Bush administration, the administrationâ€™s own 10-year fiscal outlook deteriorated by $8.2 trillion. The CBO now projects a 10-year baseline deficit outside of Social Security of $3.4 trillion. http://www.brook.edu/views/articles/20050214galeorszag.htm
See Paul Volkerâ€™s recent comments: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38725-2005Apr8.html.]
I'm not at all convinced there are declining technical and science skills. I don't see American research and engineering suffering at all.
[TT: Sorry, but there are real problems, and we need to stay focussed on this in order to maintain our long-term competitiveness.
See the NYT piece: â€œUS Is Losing Its Dominance in the Sciencesâ€ at http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0503-03.htm, and http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050322/falling_off_the_competitive_edge.php. Eamonn Fingletonâ€™s â€œUnsustainableâ€ webpage (http://www.unsustainable.org/) discusses how the US has been losing its technological lead. For a discussion of consequences, see Paul Craig Roberts at http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts05192005.html. We are now experiencing a brain-drain, as Indians and Chinese head home. Iâ€™d be interested in hearing your thoughts on this piece by Lakshmi Chaudhry, that says the US may be losing the global comptetition for creative talent. http://www.alternet.org/story/22104/.]
I don't see a particularly frayed social support network either. And I don't see wealth disparities as a problem, as long as both rich and poor are improving their lot, and as long as there is opportunity for improvement, something America has always been very good at.
[TT: Sorry, but I see serious signs. The US has the greatest degree of income inequality of any developed nation, and the disparity has been accelerating. Bankruptcy filings continue at a record pace, 45 million have no health insurance and pension systems are failing as American firms are losing their competitive strength (see Slateâ€™s â€œCramdownâ€ article: http://www.slate.com/id/2119327/fr/nl).]
We face a growing dependence on imported oil but have no cogent energy policy (which should include pricing to cover defense and environmental costs).
America should be building more nuclear power plants, including breeder reactors. The present administration seems inclined to push in that direction, which is a good thing.
[TT: Nuclear has always been a cleaner option than oil and coal, and should be expanded. However, capital costs are extremely high. We can increase our energy security most quickly and rationally by investing in greater energy efficiency in transportation, electrical generation and home heating. The least intrusive way for the government to do this would be to increase energy use taxes, and let the market work from their. We should also be focussing on coal gasification (coal to hydrogen); public utility approval requires discourage this existing technology, which gets greater BTUs out of coal, is much cleaner, and produces permanently sequestrable carbon.]

What a mess we are handing off to our children, who will have to foot the bills and the poorer America that we seem to be willing to settle for!
And again, the present administration seems willing to address issues such as the unsustainable nature of the Social Security system.
[TT: I donâ€™t see the administration making much of an effort to handle any issue openly or honestly. For four years, the administration pretended that budget deficits were of little concern; after the election Bush believed that tax cuts for the rich would one day be balanced by cuts in spending, but never explained this to the public. Only after re-election did he begin to explain that large budget deficits require cuts in Social Security, health care spending (other than the outrageously expensive new prescription drug benefit) and other areas, but Americans like the â€œfree lunchâ€ program, so the Republican party has been rejecting Bushâ€™s proposed cuts. The administration has not seriously sought an end to corporate welfare, either in cutting subsidies to corporate formers or in seeking to rein in military expenditures.
With the administration now seeking to make the tax cuts for the rich permanent (including the estate tax) and to lower the Alternate Minimum Tax, it is clear that our alarming budget deficits are entrenched, with no end in sight.]
Many global issues cry out for US leadership, but we refuse to accept that mantle in favor of unilateralism.
Many global issues do indeed cry out for US leadership, but what nations are willing to accept that leadership? Unilateralism (the old go-it-almost-alone route) is not something America chose; it was imposed by the intransigence of other nations.
[TT: You are right in part, but the truth is that there are limits to what we can do alone, and that unilateralism is extremely expensive. We need to be smarter about recognizing those limits and in deciding when the benefits of unilateral action merit the costs. We are not constrained to act unilaterally; we can chose not to act.]
The Administration, Congress and big business are fiddling while Rome burns (see Tom Friedmanâ€™s op-ed in Fridayâ€™s Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/25/opinion/25friedman.html?th&emc=th). It is a real disappointment that the Republican party is not making a serious attempt to revitalize and strengthen the US economy, but is instead sapping our competitiveness with outrageously irresponsible budget deficits (in which the roles of tax cuts and our grossly expanded and unfunded military budget must be acknowledged).
I started reading the Thomas Friedman piece. He begins by criticizing companies for not demanding enough government money (in various forms). That's not the solution we're looking for.
In fact, I'm not sure what Friedman is proposing. Subsidies for industry? Protectionism? No, he seems to be pushing for trade agreements. But some sort of government intervention. What? And why? And how is that supposed to help? He seems to think that the government should shoulder the burden of GM's health insurance. Why? Why not let GM cut its health care plan, or failing that, go broke?
Budget deficits are a problem. They're hardly uncommon during wars, but long term, they need to be fixed. Expanding social programs and subsidizing business isn't the road to a balanced budget.
I'll note that Australia has been running budget surpluses for years, to the point that government debt is expected to be fully paid by next year. On the other hand, we don't have anything like America's military expenses - even proportionally - because America is shouldering that burden.
[TT: Liberals are sometimes muddle-headed, and like looking for the government to provide solutions. Republicans have become much worse; Clinton at least balanced the budget, which Republicans have gone hog-wild, increasing spending on virtually every government program. If the administration does not seriously tighten its belt and go on a diet, we face ruin. To balance the budget we need both more revenues and spending cuts. This means a much leaner military, for one. That said, cases can be made for some new initiatives, like energy taxes and healthcare. About one-third of the healthcare dollar in the US goes to administration; this is a tremendous waste - in most other wealthy countries this is less than 20%.]
While responsible for what still is the largest economy and most important country in the world, the Administration seems to be doing all it can to make sure that voters don't hear any bad news.
Um, in what way?
The administration doesn't run the media, you know.
[TT: Letâ€™s be honest â€“ the administration plays fast and loose with the truth whenever and wherever it suits its purpose (seems on just about everything). Its budget and spending announcements have not been an exception. See http://www.roubiniglobal.com/archives/2005/02/budget_lies_it.html.
While there may well be room to criticize the Newsweek piece, it is unfortunate that the blog discussion has ignored the real substantive issues raised by the article, but focussed instead on perceived slights to the flag and the â€œmotivesâ€ of Newsweek.]

I don't see any substantive issues raised by the Newsweek article, I'm afraid.
While I fault Newsweek for selling America short by deciding not to run the piece in the US, sadly this decision seems to reflect ironically one point of the article - that in fact most of Newsweek US readers would rather hear about the Oscars, than to be forced to face unpleasant facts about our declining global position.
The problem is the Newsweek article doesn't address the declining global position of the US, if such a thing is happening in any meaningful way. Rather, it addresses and engages in antipathy towards the US. That's not productive, not in any way.
[TT: My alarm clock does not hate me when it rings, even though I might hate it for doing so. The article is intended as a wake-up call, at least on the level of perception from abroad, even if it does not delve deeply into underlying causes.]
But then I suppose it is too much to expect, if our Administration, Congress and business leaders are not willing to talk about serious issues, that our press would show it has real balls.
Once again, the Newsweek piece does not raise serious issues.
It's not a question of balls, it's a question of relevance.
[TT: I disagree. But if you feel that there are no serious issues to discuss, what upsets you so much about the article?]
Can we have a real discussion of our slipping economic position, or do we all find it easier to shoot the messenger? I look forward to some enlightenment.
We can have a real discussion, sure. But first, you have to establish what you mean by "our slipping economic position" in the context of an economy that is growing faster than almost any other first-world nation. That the global economy grew by 4.9% in 2004 compared to America's 4.4% is cause for celebration, not despondency.
[TT: Growth elsewhere is not a problem per se, but there a cumulative consequences for our long-term position. We are clearly moving toward a multi-polar world, in which the ascendance of China (India, etc.) is important, not only for the US but also for Japan and old Europe. The US previously celebrated growth of the global economy and the integration of various states into that economy through the use of multilateral institutions, but has been reluctant to share power and responsibility. Especially in connection with our invasion of Iraq, we now see increasing resentment and concern, at sufficient levels that we are seeing deliberate efforts to blunt Americaâ€™s power. Simply speaking, we need to recognize our limits and act at our own peril if we do not. We may be better served if we make an honest effort to get our own house in order, and to use our still dominant position to lead others in ways that build a safer world that is attractive to them, rather in ways that undercut our power and effectiveness. For raising this issue, Newsweek deserves some credit, but also approbation for lacking the nerve to tell it directly to Americans, and limiting the Moravcsik piece to foreign audiences.]
Posted by Pixy Misa at May 31, 2005 02:21 PM

Posted by: Tokyo Tom at June 06, 2005 07:21 PM (R+EaW)

3 For raising this issue, Newsweek deserves some credit, but also approbation for lacking the nerve to tell it directly to Americans, and limiting the Moravcsik piece to foreign audiences.
Nope. You're reading something that's not there. The Newsweek article is 100% crap from top to bottom. Well, there is one sentence that isn't false-to-fact, as I noted. So 99.8% crap.
The Newsweek article is completely worthless. It's a collection of lies and pandering. That's all it is.
Anyway:
Why do you dodge the issue and ramifications of the long decline in US economic dominance? Even while our economy has continued to grow, the fact that the rest of the world has been catching up means that the US has steadily less influence.
I don't dodge the issue.
I think that in as far as it signifies at all, it's GOOD.
It's not that the US is losing economic dominance. It's that some parts of the world that used to be complete economic disaster areas are making structural improvements. As their productivity and efficiency grows, so too does their trade, and everyone wins. (One of the things that isn't a trade-off, at least, not overall. Encourage free trade and everyone wins.)
This notably does not include Africa, which has been going backwards despite - or because of - tens of billions of dollars in aid. Much of the rest of the world used to be the same sort of pestilential shithole that sub-Saharan Africa is now. It's improving, and that's a good thing.
Because the better off people are, the more they have to lose. And the more they have to lose, the less they act like idiots. When someone has a nice house and a garden and three kids - the oldest one in college - and a dog and a new SUV with three years of payments left to go, it's bloody hard to get them to go invade the country next door.
Liberals are sometimes muddle-headed, and like looking for the government to provide solutions.
Liberals are invariably muddle-headed. Looking for someone else to solve your problems is the hallmark of liberalism. (Present-day, not claissical or neo-liberalism.)
I'll address the rest of your points, but it's basically the same thing as I said before:
Budget and trade deficits are a problem in the long term.
And that's it. That's the only actual problem in everything you've linked to. The rest of it is twaddle.
You were worried about the opinion of Europe? Well, Europe can't even get its own act together, and looks set to drop the common currency and disintegrate. Who actually opposed America in recent actions? France, Germany, Russia and China. Since when have any of them been allies - of anything other than temporary convenience? Not just to America, but to anyone?
Oh, yes, one last thing:
tax cuts for the rich
That is pure bullshit. The tax cuts weren't for the rich, not exclusively, not even mostly.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at June 06, 2005 09:40 PM (+S1Ft)

4 I agree that economic growth and development are generally GOOD (ignoring all of the unexpected and undesired consequences), but it is also very much the truth that along with wealth and economic strength comes power.
And you are ignoring the fact that this is all a RELATIVE game. The top dog can continually keep growing, but if there are other dogs that grow faster, pretty soon someone else is top dog. Those who study history or archeaology can see many examples of previous top dogs that have either crumbled to dust or if they're still around, much reduced in relative status. What is making the shift to a multi-polar world possible is the fact that the Soviet Union fell apart because it couldn't keep up with the US.
To stress the point, just look at the difficult position the US is in now in Iraq, with hundreds of billions down the tube, added to the deficit, with very little support from others and no end in sight.
And China is already changing everyone's calculations - not the least in Australia, where the government chose this week not to give asylum to a Chinese diplomat who was spilling the beans about China's network of spies there.
The US cannot ignore China - it can either make nice and try to integrate China, or it can make an enemy of China. It seems the Bush administration is starting to see China as a strategic rival.

Posted by: Tokyo Tom at June 07, 2005 09:25 PM (R+EaW)

5 And you are ignoring the fact that this is all a RELATIVE game.
No I'm not.
The top dog can continually keep growing, but if there are other dogs that grow faster, pretty soon someone else is top dog.
As I've noted several times, the higher your per-capita GDP (i.e. the more efficient you are), the harder it is to continue to grow.
Those who study history or archeaology can see many examples of previous top dogs that have either crumbled to dust or if they're still around, much reduced in relative status.
Nothing lasts forever.
Rome fell due to internal rot. But the British Empire faded away at least partly due to technological advancement. By the beginning of the 20th century, the advantage of having an empire had been drastically reduced.
To stress the point, just look at the difficult position the US is in now in Iraq, with hundreds of billions down the tube, added to the deficit, with very little support from others and no end in sight.
The situation in Iraq is a flyspeck compared to what America is capable of. It doesn't signify to America, not industrially or financially. It signifies militarily only in that we are still running on a peacetime basis. If it was a serious war, we could put more troops on the ground in Iraq than the entire population of Iraq.
The US cannot ignore China - it can either make nice and try to integrate China, or it can make an enemy of China. It seems the Bush administration is starting to see China as a strategic rival.
Good fucking grief. Starting to see China as a strategic rival?! Did you sleep through the second half of the 20th century or what?
The way to deal with China is to keep buying their cheap goodies and keep selling them, well, whatever. Let them eat cake. Once they have a taste for cake, they're not going to go back.
Look, the US represents one twentieth of the world's population. The only way it can remain the dominant economic power is for the rest of the world to remain a third-world shithole. And the whole point of progress is for the world not to remain a third-world shithole.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at June 07, 2005 09:48 PM (+S1Ft)

6 OK. Nothing lasts forever, the US should try to integrate, and the US cannot remain the dominant economic power. We agree.
Why do we have a problem getting to the second step, that of recognizing that, since there are limits to US power, the US should acknowledge the trade-offs between unilateral and multilateral action and the relevance of how other countries perceive and respond to the US? And for such purpose, it is useful to try to inform American readers of these matters?
Or are Americans and others around the world better served if all of these complicated foreign matters are simply left to our elected leaders? You don't have a vote, but your opinion still matters.
Tell me that you have no qualms about how the US is dealing with China, much less our own budget and current account deficits (not unrelated, by the way).
It's quite interesting to me, by the way, how much your readers love "fisking" something that is run by the MSN, but all drift away from any real discussion of issues.
I think there are many things the Administration (and Americans) could be doing better, and have no problem with the press giving voice to someone's opinions on such matters.
By the way, I agree that some of Moravcsik's points are clearly wrong, misstated or garbage. But on the bigger issue, that Americans do not understand the changes in the global power game and that the US is misplaying its cards as a result, I think he is spot on.
Cheers.

Posted by: Tokyo Tom at June 08, 2005 03:10 PM (R+EaW)

7 Why do we have a problem getting to the second step, that of recognizing that, since there are limits to US power, the US should acknowledge the trade-offs between unilateral and multilateral action and the relevance of how other countries perceive and respond to the US?
Because the other countries are full of shit.
And for such purpose, it is useful to try to inform American readers of these matters?
American readers are informed of these matters - if they want to be. The information is readily available.
Or are Americans and others around the world better served if all of these complicated foreign matters are simply left to our elected leaders? You don't have a vote, but your opinion still matters.
All of this has been hashed out endlessly.
Point is: We are right. They are wrong. The media is for the most part hopelessly biased. (Even worse in Europe than America or Australia.) Blogs are getting all the opinions out there, and all the facts too.
Blogs good.
Tell me that you have no qualms about how the US is dealing with China, much less our own budget and current account deficits (not unrelated, by the way).
I've addressed the deficits a number of times.
Why should I have qualms about how the US is dealing with China?
It's quite interesting to me, by the way, how much your readers love "fisking" something that is run by the MSN, but all drift away from any real discussion of issues.
WHAT ISSUES?
Deficits? Yah. We know. WE KNOW ALREADY!
Most of us are libertarian-leaning centrists or small-government conservatives. We KNOW! Deficits bad.
That is the only point you have raised that deserves discussion.
I think there are many things the Administration (and Americans) could be doing better, and have no problem with the press giving voice to someone's opinions on such matters.
Neither do I.
But in the case of the Newsweek article, only one sentence in the entire piece had a basis in fact. The rest was crap.
By the way, I agree that some of Moravcsik's points are clearly wrong, misstated or garbage. But on the bigger issue, that Americans do not understand the changes in the global power game and that the US is misplaying its cards as a result, I think he is spot on.
No.
Look. Read the article. What it says is "We don't like you Americans, so we will flush our economies and our civil rights alike down the toilet just to spite you."
Well, if people are going to do that, honestly, who cares?

Posted by: Pixy Misa at June 08, 2005 04:25 PM (AIaDY)

8 Those of us who are libertarian-leaning centrists or small-government conservatives also know that:
- the biggest problem with the MSM is that they are big and are in the business of selling earning revenue. The result is not that are overwhelmingly biased towards anyone, but prefer NOT to rock the boat. If anything, they are rather easily co-opted and cowed by the Administration. Read some of the recent pieces by Syndney Schanberg ("Killing Fields" reporter).
- far worse than the MSM are Riley, Rush and Fox (which has found that flag-waving is better for ratings than the truth, much less being fair and balanced).
- this Adminstration has to be setting all kinds of records for secrecy, dishonesty and cynical manipulation of public opinion. This is very dangerous; political debate has been poisoned by the Adminstration and attack dogs from the right who see treason in everyone who questions the wisdom of anything that the Adminstration considers a priority. I agree with conservatives like Paul Craig Roberts on this.
Yes, there's alot of information on blogs, and yes there are problems with the media, but I am much more concerned about all the crap coming from the White House (yes, DEFICITS are one item!).
So I am very troubled by all the excitement that is generated when bloggers "frisk" the MSM, to the detriment of substantive discussion. While it's totally fair to point out what's wrong with the Newsweek article, why don't you consider using it as a springboard to harp on issues that your US readers should be concerned about? Like the deficit.
I disagree with you about the gist of the article. I think it says, hey America (big, fat, lazy, ignorant), you've got your own problems and your head up your ass on some things. None of us take criticism well, but it wouldn't stick in our craw so much if you were not ignoring your own faults and were a bit more tactful. We're actually interested in leadership, but we know if your isolationistic bent. You're a big guy and more than a little unpredictable. We get frustrated when you back away from big issues that require your cooperation - Kyoto, small arms, land mines, international tribunals, etc. - and are troubled when you are ready to charge off in one direction for reasons we don't understand.
You might think all those outside who think the above are full of shit, and those of us who are willing to listen fools. But then so is your dream of a global world order, cuz you ain't gonna get there without buy-in from Americans.

Posted by: Tokyo Tom at June 09, 2005 10:09 PM (R+EaW)

9 Those of us who are libertarian-leaning centrists or small-government conservatives also know that
If you are either of those, then you are remarkably ill-informed.
Stop reading the god-damned New York Times and pick up some P. J. O'Rourke.
The result is not that are overwhelmingly biased towards anyone, but prefer NOT to rock the boat. If anything, they are rather easily co-opted and cowed by the Administration.
Except that "the boat" has become an entirely "progressive" (that is, reactionary, socialist) worldview. Nothing to do with the U.S. government, everything to do with an entrenched mindset in academia and journalism.
There has been a non-stop media assault on the Bush administration from day one. For the most part, it is not factually based, and is often provably factually false. Often it borders on the insane. Plastic turkey! Halliburton! Abu Ghraib!
this Adminstration has to be setting all kinds of records for secrecy, dishonesty and cynical manipulation of public opinion.
Bullshit. One hundred percent certified pure bullshit.
So I am very troubled by all the excitement that is generated when bloggers "frisk"
That's "fisk", after Robert Fisk, a infamously bad reporter - and winner of numerous journalism awards, which kind of proves my point.
the MSM, to the detriment of substantive discussion.
You just aren't paying attention.
A fisking is a point-by-point refutation of an article. That's what I did. It is often aggressive, but the point is to challenge assertions that are unfounded.
While it's totally fair to point out what's wrong with the Newsweek article, why don't you consider using it as a springboard to harp on issues that your US readers should be concerned about? Like the deficit.
The deficit is being covered quite well - elsewhere. No, I am not going to harp on it.
I think it says, hey America (big, fat, lazy, ignorant), you've got your own problems and your head up your ass on some things.
And America says "You have 10% unemployment, endemic corruption, and your government has collapsed 12 times in the last two hundred years. Twice we had to come over and bail you out. You clearly have no idea how to run a country, and no-one cares what you think. About anything. So fuck you."
We get frustrated when you back away from big issues that require your cooperation - Kyoto
Kyoto is an entirely worthless piece of politicking that will damage economies while doing nothing for the environment. What's more, for the most part, those countries that have ratified the agreement have made no progress at all to fulfilling their obligations.
We take our obligations seriously.
small arms
The right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in our constitution. (Speaking for America here, and unfortunately not for Australia.) If you don't like it, tough. It is not going to change.
Meanwhile, Britain is looking to ban pointy knives. We'll take the occasional accidental shooting over your all-encompassing nanny state, thank you.
land mines
There is some validity here. But remember, you are relying on us for your defense. We will minimise and carefully control use of landmines, but we will not stop using them when we think it is necessary.
And those fields full of landmines that cause problems for so many years after the war is over? Not us. Ask Russia.
international tribunals
Since you have demonstrated that you are not serious about anything, we see no reason to involve ourselves with any tribunal you wish to construct.
Go ahead without us.
What, you can't make it work without us? Well, WHAT A FRIGGING SHAME!
and are troubled when you are ready to charge off in one direction for reasons we don't understand.
We have explained our reasons. We meant what we said.
Stop trying to parse our statements into your personal reality. We meant what we said.
You might think all those outside who think the above are full of shit, and those of us who are willing to listen fools.
Pretty much, yeah.
But then so is your dream of a global world order, cuz you ain't gonna get there without buy-in from Americans.
Well, that's tough luck for you.
Look, my "dream" is for wealth, peace and honest government for all. In Australia, I already have that. America already has that. If you don't want it, ultimately, we don't care. Whatever. We'll kill a few of the viler dictators, give people a chance to rebuild. We don't care what France, Germany or Russia have to say, because they've already destroyed themselves, which demonstrates that they know nothing. We will listen to advice from countries like Britain and Japan - who have in the past been our bitter enemies - because they have demonstrated that they can learn. But we are not beholden to them. And we are never going to pay attention to abuse.
In the end, we aren't going to force anyone to do something that is clearly for their own benefit. We're not your mother. If you want to wallow in the mud for the rest of your lives, so be it. But if you try to attack us, it's all over for you.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at June 10, 2005 04:49 AM (+S1Ft)

10 Sorry, but Iâ€™m getting discouraged. I had thought we could have genuine discussion, but your world is a rather solipsistic. If I donâ€™t agree with you, then it seems you need to peg me in a category (so far: neither â€œremarkably ill-informedâ€ or NOT a libertarian leaning centrist or small-government conservative). I think you need to do a little stretching of your world view to recognize the fact that there are lots of libertarians and small-government conservatives in the US who are totally appalled by the Bush administration, the war in Iraq and how spineless the MSM has been in confronting Adminstration spin, lies and distortion on many fronts.
This is not a modest, conservative administration in the classic sense of the word, but a charged-up administration on a largely unilateral mission abroad and a decidedly big-government engaged in liberal, budge-besting behavior at home. For this administration, its ends justifies nearly any means, and it is not interested in honest discussion. If this administration truly cared about liberating Iraqis from Saddam, why has it been so slow to do anything in places where similar results could be achieved for much less expense and at much lower risk â€“ like the Sudan and Zimbabwe? And if the action in Iraq was merely to remove a dictator, then surely we could have done than for less than $300 billion, and without construction of a number of expensive, permanent military bases?
Ever taken a look at recent articles by Paul Craig Roberts? The libertarian anti-war site by Justin Raimondo? http://antiwar.com/who.php. Ever hear of the Cato Institute? http://www.cato.org. Besides railing against the war, they are extremely concerned about the undermining of civil liberties at home. Here are a few links:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts95.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts81.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts05172005.html
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/cgi-bin/roberts.cgi/American%20Empire/2005/05/27/Is_Bush_a_Sith_Lord
http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v24n1/thewar.pdf
http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v24n2/war.pdf

As for your substantive comments on my summary of how others perceive the US, you have some good counter-points (although you seem to conflate you view from Australia as identical with an American perspective), but you also essentially affirm the main view from abroad â€“ America purports to dream for wealth, peace and honest government for allâ€, but it is a dream that America is not willing to make a concerted multilateral effort to achieve. Bush might feel good to speak of an â€œaxis of evilâ€, but the anti-Americanism stirred up on the Muslim world by Iraq will certain bite America in the ass â€“ in addition to the collateral damage suffered by our allies the Australians (Bali) and Spain - and North Korea and Iran have both responded to the implied threat in ways counterproductive to US security. Others are right to worry about American umpredictability; Americans are basically isolationists, and prefer to be left alone, but when finally roused, have a predilection to swing to radical intervention in an emotional manner that is not always very well thought out.
And the fact that other countries have their own problems does not mean they have no standing to point out Americaâ€™s. There are lots of things wrong with thte US, and we NEED to pay attention to them; if we have to be told by others before we will listen, then so be it. Tell me again that guys like Paul Volker (talking about lack of political will to confront the twin deficits) and Joe Stiglitz (http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050406/democracy_starts_at_home.php.) are ignorant and their comments traitorous?
I leave you with a quote from a Cato Institute report (http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v26n4/cpr-26n4-1.pdf):
â€œNo matter how successful the United States is in homeland security and dismantling Al Qaeda, it will not stop terrorism unless U.S. foreign policy changes. More than anything else, U.S. foreign policy is the cause of the virulent anti-Americanism that is the basis for terrorism. If we donâ€™t change U.S. foreign policy to stem the tide of growing anti-American sentiment overseas, particularly within the Muslim world, then the pool of terrorist recruits will grow and the United States will continue to be a target.â€
But I guess you consider them to be either "remarkably ill-informed" or not truly libertarian, small-government conservatives?

Posted by: Tokyo Tom at June 12, 2005 11:43 PM (R+EaW)

11 Sorry, but Iâ€™m getting discouraged. I had thought we could have genuine discussion, but your world is a rather solipsistic.
No. See here for why this statement is complete nonsense.
I think you need to do a little stretching of your world view to recognize the fact that there are lots of libertarians and small-government conservatives in the US who are totally appalled by the Bush administration, the war in Iraq and how spineless the MSM has been in confronting Adminstration spin, lies and distortion on many fronts.
Not at all. There are indeed libertarians who oppose the war in Iraq. I don't care, really, because they are wrong. I have libertarian sympathies, but Libertarianism, as presented by the American Libertarian Party, is pure idiocy.
I don't fall into the common socialist (and other-ists) trap of saying If you don't believe in X, you're not a true socialist. There are conservatives who oppose the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq. They are still conservatives. They're just wrong.
And again you bring up your bizarro-world view of the MSM. For the most part - ABC, CBC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo, LAT, and so on - the MSM has been all attack, all the time with the Bush adminstration. If you say that they miss the important points because they are too busy screeching like crazed about minor things, then I'd agree with you. But they're not spineless; they're just stupid.
For this administration, its ends justifies nearly any means, and it is not interested in honest discussion.
You keep saying things like that, but you have never produced anything to back it up.
If this administration truly cared about liberating Iraqis from Saddam, why has it been so slow to do anything in places where similar results could be achieved for much less expense and at much lower risk â€“ like the Sudan and Zimbabwe?
Several reasons.
First, we are already in Iraq. Second, we were already at war with Iraq - there was an ongoing ceasefire, which Iraq had broken the terms of numerous times. Third, one of the main aims in invading Iraq was to destabilise the Middle East, because its stability was that of a growing cancer. Fourth, Iraq has good prospects given a few years of assistance. Africa will take decades of concerted effort to straighten out.
Bush might feel good to speak of an â€œaxis of evilâ€, but the anti-Americanism stirred up on the Muslim world by Iraq will certain bite America in the ass â€“ in addition to the collateral damage suffered by our allies the Australians (Bali) and Spain - and North Korea and Iran have both responded to the implied threat in ways counterproductive to US security.
You have cause-and-effect reversed. Iran has been deeply - insanely - anti-American since the revolution. North Korea has been just plain insane since it was formed. North Korea's development of nuclear weapons started during the Clinton administration. And Bali happened before Iraq.
Ever taken a look at recent articles by Paul Craig Roberts?
No.
The libertarian anti-war site by Justin Raimondo? http://antiwar.com/who.php
Oh, Justin Raimondo. Noted anti-semite, hatemonger and all-round whackjob. Yeah, I know Raimondo.
Besides railing against the war, they are extremely concerned about the undermining of civil liberties at home.
Oh, they are concerned, are they? Can they actually point to any civili liberties actually being undermined, or are they just concerned on spec, as it were?
America purports to dream for wealth, peace and honest government for allâ€, but it is a dream that America is not willing to make a concerted multilateral effort to achieve.
That's really fucking stupid, you know that?
It's breathtakingly stupid from a historical perspective - remember World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Cold War in general, and the recent liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq? You can't have forgotten all of those already, surely, since you were just ranting about some of them.
And it's completely retarded from a perspective of practicality and public relations. America gets shat on by almost everyone any time it lifts a finger to help people out. We have ongoing protests in South Korea against the presence of American troops who are defending that country against a nuclear-armed lunatic to the immediate north. We have Europe doing its level best to foil any plans America might make for... anything. Gratitude? Respect? Hah.
And why the hell should it be America's job to deliver wealth, health and happiness to the world? All you have to do is stop being socialist shitheads and everything will work out. We know that. But instead we get Mugabe depopulating the towns to put people back on farms that he has just stolen from the previous owners.
Yeah, we can send the Marines in to shoot him, but what then?
Others are right to worry about American umpredictability; Americans are basically isolationists, and prefer to be left alone, but when finally roused, have a predilection to swing to radical intervention in an emotional manner that is not always very well thought out.
The first half of that statement is correct.
The second half is completely wrong. You want to look for radical, emotional, poorly planned intervention? Look to Europe. Pretty much any time in the past thousand years, but the last two centuries are particularly instructive.
When America does emerge from isolation to respond to an external threat, the response is generally well-planned and well-executed, and it is extrememly thorough and persistent.
Remember what I just said about American troops defending South Korea? The war was over 50 years ago, and they are still there, still defending the country.
And the fact that other countries have their own problems does not mean they have no standing to point out Americaâ€™s. There are lots of things wrong with thte US, and we NEED to pay attention to them; if we have to be told by others before we will listen, then so be it
Name one.
Name such a problem.
And it better not be those bloody deficits again.
And it had better not be "America isn't doing enough to solve the world's problems".
No matter how successful the United States is in homeland security and dismantling Al Qaeda, it will not stop terrorism unless U.S. foreign policy changes. More than anything else, U.S. foreign policy is the cause of the virulent anti-Americanism that is the basis for terrorism. If we donâ€™t change U.S. foreign policy to stem the tide of growing anti-American sentiment overseas, particularly within the Muslim world, then the pool of terrorist recruits will grow and the United States will continue to be a target.
Blahdee blahdee blah.
What a load of steaming shit.
America's current foreign policy is a direct attempt to dismantle the root causes of terrorism. Those root causes have nothing to do with America. They have everything to do with the disfunctional regimes of the Middle East, and Saudi Arabia in particular. Though Iraq, Iran, Syria, Palestine and Libya have all given their fair share.
It's a complete reversal of Clinton's foreign policy, which was basically to suck up to everyone and ignore any problems. Wonderful ideas like building nuclear reactors for North Korea, that sort of thing.
That policy was still in effect on September 11, 2001. It was changed on September 12. The insane anti-Americanism we see all over the world dates back to President Clinton's watch and earlier. It's not a response to President Bush's radical plan to reform the world - that is exactly backwards. Bush's policies are a response to rising anti-Americanism and terrorism.
YOU DON'T GET TO REVERSE THE FLOW OF CAUSE AND EFFECT FOR MERE RHETORICAL CONVENIENCE. IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY.
But I guess you consider them to be either "remarkably ill-informed" or not truly libertarian, small-government conservatives?
Not necessarily. There are many libertarians and conservatives I consider hopelessly deluded. There are even some liberals I don't consider hopelessly deluded. Takes all kinds.

Well, it doesn't really. But there are all kinds anyway.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at June 13, 2005 12:31 AM (+S1Ft)

12 http://amateur.anzwers.net/ppix/zoobeast/38135/index.html dimlyfingeringwelcomed

Posted by: rearing at April 25, 2006 12:25 AM (Gzzgf)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

World

Ticky Tacky Sleep Compilers

Now in convenient capsules!

My grand-daughter Trixie has written of her "sleep compiler", an advanced electronic bio-feedback device that allows you to get by on just two or three hours of sleep a night. (It also lets you subscribe to the cable-dream network, but that's a post for another day.)

We seem to be catching up fast on Trixie's 22nd century world, unless it turns out that modafinil (pronounced like mow-daffodil) has some nasty side effects. Nastier than rashes and upset tummies anyway.

Modafinil (marketed as Provigil) has the curious effect of suppressing your urge to sleep. You still get tired - just not sleepy. And you still can sleep; it doesn't cause insomnia. It's just that you can remain awake and alert for extended periods without the need for sleep, and without the familiar side-effects of caffeine and amphetamines.*

It's not a stimulant; there's no high with modafinil. You wake up feeling rested, you find it easy to concentrate, you feel like doing work. You may also find yourself grinning like a feral chipmunk, so if this is not normal for you, you might find it best to keep your office door closed.

This site has first hand reports from people who have tried modifinil. It's interesting stuff, if subjective and occasionally unsettling:

I would warn that there might be a contraindication for high doses of Wellbutrin plus Provigil. I should mention I had some meth-amphetamine metabolites running around in my system from the previous night's partying (2 healthy sized tokes).

Uh, yeah. My liver has gone into hiding just reading that.

Is modafinil the magic, um, sleep thingy? No-one's ready to come out and say so just yet. As a sufferer of the dread 28-hour sleep cycle† I'm more than a little interested; as a cowardly chicken who ain't gonna take no nasty pills‡ I'm inclined to wait and see.

Now I'm just waiting for the modafinil spam to arrive.

* Well, I'm not personally familiar with the side-effects of amphetamines, but they have been studied extensively.

† Left to my own devices, I sleep ten hours out of twenty-eight, rather than eight out of twenty-four. I'm never ready to go to bed in time to get enough sleep so that I'll be ready to get up in the morning, if you follow me. If I go to bed at 11 pm, say, I don't want to get up until 9, and even if I crawl out of bed at 7 I'm not ready to sleep again until 1 am. I've been this way since my teens, so I've learned to live with it.

One thing that helps is that there are exactly six 28-hour days in a normal muggle week. So if I take a week off and let my sleep pattern take its natural course, it's back in sync at the end... Or actually, eight hours out, which is what happens every weekend, which I counter with a nap on Sunday afternoon, except then I don't get to sleep until late and...

It's after midnight, and I'm fully alert, and I have to go to bed now or I won't get up in the morning. Bah.

‡ Except my anti-sneeze tablets, because without those, life ain't worth living.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 12:30 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

May 30, 2005

World

Just Like Engish, Only Spelled Funny

Le vote franÃ§ais plonge l'Union europÃ©enne
dans une pÃ©riode d'incertitudes

You can say that again.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 11:51 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Life

C'Mere Skippy!

Wooo-wit-woo!

Hoppity-hop de-hop
De hoppity-hop de-hop de-hop
De hoppity-hop de-hop de-hop de-hop-hop-hop -

Bang!

Chop chop chop.

Sizzle sizzle.

Mmmgood.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 10:07 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

May 28, 2005

Geek

That Was To Be Expected

Four installs and two failed upgrades later, I'm up and running.

Yay!

Fedora Core 4 Test 3 came out on the 10th of May. Today is the 28th. There are already 1.2 gigabytes of updates available.

Also to be expected: There's more than one type of DVI cable. This is the wrong type.

Hmm. Okay, what I have is a DVI-I single-link cable. What I need is a DVI-D cable... Or a pair of needle-nose wirecutters. What I want is a DVI-D dual-link cable. Oh look, here's one, only $250. Maybe I'll try another store...

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 11:01 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Geek

Push the Button!

I went and did it. Currently installing about 8GB of software. Should take about half an hour.

Oy.

Lots of shiny new toys to play with; my old Linux box was running Fedora Core 2, which is a year old now.

What's amazing is the amount of stuff that's left out. Nethack? Pike? Metakit? No sign of them, or of ten thousand other packages. Okay, 90% of them are crap, but that leaves an awful lot of good stuff.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 06:30 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Geek

Semi-Splut

So, I backed everything up yet again, checked it, double-checked it, triple checked it, and then installed the replacement video card in my new computer (the GeForce 6600 non-GT).

Stuck the CentOS 4 disk in and discovered that my computer no longer has a DVD-ROM drive. Ten minutes of fiddling with the BIOS options got it back, and it turns out that CentOS 4 has no idea what a GeForce 6600 is, and crashes when it tries to go into graphics mode.

Crap doodles!

Okay, pulled out Fedora Core 4 Test 3. That works. Mmmf. This means I can't easily do a test upgrade before wiping the LVM that it built when I gave up fiddling with that poxy pagan piece of shit.* Unless, maybe...

I'd say the hell with it, but this machine currently contains my only complete, easily accessible copy of my anime fansub collection.

* Disk Druid, Red Hat's partitioning utility. It sucks.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 05:13 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

World

Danegeld

Rudyard Kipling

It is always a temptation to an armed and agile nation,
To call upon a neighbour and to say:
"We invaded you last night - we are quite prepared to fight,
Unless you pay us cash to go away."
And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
And the people who ask it explain
That youâ€™ve only to pay â€™em the Dane-geld
And then youâ€™ll get rid of the Dane!
It is always a temptation to a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say:
"Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away."
And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But weâ€™ve proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.
It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray,
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say:
"We never pay any one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost,
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that plays it is lost!"

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 10:08 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 Ah, Kipling, underappreciated and still so relevant. I have his full collection, but I haven't actually read much of it. I don't think I've read this one before. Thanks for sharing.

Posted by: TallDave at May 28, 2005 05:08 PM (H8Wgl)

2 There's a discussion over at Belgravia Dispatch wherein some Swiss idiot said that although appeasement might not have been completely successful in World War II, that doesn't mean it always fails.
I quoted Kipling at him. Appeasement in Europe has a history of failure going back a thousand years and more.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at May 28, 2005 05:29 PM (+S1Ft)

3 No man survives when freedom fails,
the best men rot in filthy jails,
and those who cry appease, appease
are hanged by those they tried to please
- Hiram Mann

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 30, 2005 11:43 AM (0yYS2)

4 ,Christian Louboutin cognac suede Lady Derby 120 lace up peep toe booties
sudden prosecution for his father,christian louboutin copper leather Short Tina 120 fringe pumps, four children are said no to comprehend,Christian Louboutin Patent Slingback Pump, and that the father is old and muddled. In the court investigation,Christian Louboutin black leather Guerriere 120 wrapped boots, the boss also recommended that the father was very old, asked his father for the identification of capability for civilian conduct, merely rejected by the court according to law. uncle Korea urged the division of property, under the mediation of a judge,Chrsitian Louboutin Sexy Sling Glittered Stiletto, South Korea reached one concert uncle and four children: all real estate owned by Han uncle, the amount of the house by the Government assessed the merit of a house of 3,500 yuan a square meter , according to their inherited share, from South Korea to disburse their housing uncle merge partition of the 36,Christian Louboutin Pigalle Glittered Pump,000 yuan. 22 million in deposits, according to inherit the share of the division,Christian Louboutin Rolando Patent Leather Platform Pumps, four children per 22,Christian Louboutin Mater Claude Nude,000 yuan.
After inquiry, the court was accused namely the uncle and his wife Han, Department of the prevalent property of a 100 square meter house and deposits of 22 million yuan. In consensus with the relevant provisions of inheritance decree,Christian Louboutin Platform Pump, real estate and deposits Korea has played 6 tenths uncle's share account for one-tenth of the other four kid.
WASHINGTON Wuxi May 11 (Xinhua Sun Quan Liu Yanli) Beitang District,Christian Louboutin Platform Pump, Wuxi City People's Court heard a discussion with a special heritage,Christian Louboutin Very Prive suede black, a regional Korean centenarians uncle because his wife and children in the sectioning of the possession issues dispute,Christian Louboutin Bana 140 patent Pump, the four babies of a huff apt tribunal.
children after a dispute between the quickly escalating,Christian Louboutin Simple 100 Suede Pumps, requiring Korea uncle to make a expression above the partitioning of the estate. In desperation, the four children of Han simply be uncle to court, according to law the property left behind his wife separated.
afterward the commencement of mediation,Christian Louboutin Yolanda Black, besides the foreman,Christian Louboutin Pigalle 120 studded denim pumps, the other three children are said to give up that amount of money merge housing, house at his dad continue to live, property ownership even later management in accordance with the hopes of his father. (End)

Posted by: discount louboutin at May 16, 2011 12:41 PM (OLJhl)

5
pay to later, Mr. Zhang took it goes on the invoice arranged puzzled him, Training will be less than 3 hours on end, and also lacks the substantive content,Christian Louboutin New Declic suede pump,
Sun City Price Bureau said it would investigate the charges.
question: Bureau of Quality Supervision price charged training fees
Response: Bureau of Quality Supervision charges did not recognize the approval
tall cost, is called
Morning News his real label) to the newspaper to reflect that he mistrusted the city declared open by the Quality Supervision Bureau of the training opportunities will be overcharged. Sun City Bureau of Quality Supervision person in charge of relevant departments,Christian Louboutin Simple 100 Suede Pumps, responded that the charges have not been submitted for agreement to the price department is customary.
correspondents ahead the deadline,Christian Louboutin black patent Lady Sling 120 slingback, the city declared Standardization Section brain of Quality Supervision Bureau,Christian Louboutin Bana 140 patent Pump, told reporters shriek,Christian Louboutin black leather Guerriere 120 wrapped boots, notwithstanding training will be short, yet very promising it was to work out to mobilize the afterward inspection, the fees absence to be used publicity,Christian Louboutin Lady Claude, etc., so the fees will be higher. Newspaper will continue to disburse attention.
admission staff over the source accustomed to reporters, the city declared the p.m. of the 10th Bureau of Quality Supervision absolutely multi-purpose room in the hotel held a meeting, participants depending on receipt of disbursement in 2000 dollars , got the invoice issued by the hotel.
reporter Fang Jiawei
According to its presentation, to attend the training will be mostly gas stations Xuancheng areas and counties in charge, there are several dozens of total pay at least eighty-nine million. Data for
introduced,Christian Louboutin Lady Glitter Slingback Nude, along to Mr. Zhang, who is in dictate of a regional gas station human. May 10,Christian Louboutin Sexy 85 patent pump, he declared the city in consensus with the Quality Supervision Bureau of Special Equipment Safety Supervision Department of the call queried to partake in a training conference. Training will be declared a appointed district is situated in the city Economic Development Zone,Christian Louboutin New Declic python, super source of hotel. Let him be surprised that, before the meeting, the staff of Quality Supervision Bureau requested participants pay 2000 dollars per person.
a simple training session,Christian Louboutin Mater Claude Red, Bureau of Quality Supervision why collect so many money? Charges without foundation? May 11 afternoon,Christian Louboutin Banana Cork-Heel, a reporter over the source to the Sun City Sun City Hotel and the Quality Supervision Bureau for verification. microblogging Recommended | today's hot microblogging
Sun City Bureau of Quality Supervision of Special Equipment Safety Supervision Department head of Pan Shiqing also reacted to the reporters.
The purpose of this education,Christian Louboutin black leather New Simple 120 platform pumps, Panshi Qing said,Christian Louboutin Rolando Hidden-Platform Pump, declared the city last annual, filling station, operation carried out special work station was not very nice, so this annual intends to continue to carry out such activities,Christian Louboutin Rolando Hidden-Platform Pump, training on the relevant site.
Pan Shiqing annotated namely the conference participants did receive a fare per human in 2000 greenbacks, the spend is effectively as the making of promotional materials and filling stations and additional elements of the yearly examination. Commissioned along the hostel fare is collected, so operation namely very handy, the motel is also the terminal invoice published along the managerial elements, no the fees invoice.
Price Reporting Center Authority staff member surnamed Wang to thank this weekly for the oversight. The staff membership said, Price ambition be announced for soon for feasible the metropolis Bureau of Quality Supervision fees will be based ashore the exercising, such as scrutinize,Christian Louboutin Guerriere 120 suede ankle boots, whether it is dictatorial charges, the amount department will be dealt with severely.
Panshi Qing said that the charges have not been to the price for the disc, >
not record whether the Quality Supervision Bureau will pay for training? This reporter consulted declared the city Municipality. Sun City Price Bureau said Section staff administrative approval to clutch such training must be submitted for approval to the price department.

Posted by: louboutin cheap at May 16, 2011 12:42 PM (OLJhl)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

<< Page 27 >>

Processing 0.03, elapsed 0.1351 seconds.
49 queries taking 0.1144 seconds, 179 records returned.
Page size 238 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.

June 11, 2005

June 08, 2005

June 07, 2005

June 06, 2005

June 05, 2005

June 03, 2005

June 02, 2005

June 01, 2005

May 31, 2005

May 30, 2005

May 28, 2005

Praise for Ambient Irony

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

A Fine Selection of Aldebaran Liqueurs

That Ol' Janx Spirit

Mostly Harmless

MuNu Blogroll

Dish of the Day

RSS Feeds

Ecosystem

Sitemeter

Server Status