Re: Douglass North: new book
Here is part 2 of my notes on Douglass North's new book, Understanding the Process of Economic Change. (Part 1 was yesterday, 2005 Nov 24.) On page 7, North states that The emphasis here is on the sharp divide between institutions constructed to deal with uncertainties that are a consequence of the physical environment and those constructed to deal with the human environment. ... I do not know yet what North means in detail, but this divide is important. Athough North has not mentioned it so far as I have read in the book, his statement fits my understanding that humans have different mental modules for thinking about physical and human issues (and presumably other mental modules, too. This claim comes through general reading and I cannot give you references. You may know better or more.) Also, early on, North refers to a euhemerus who is important to the US right-wing, Friedrich A. Hayek. To my knowledge from more than 40 years ago, that man is not exactly as he was portrayed by some. I do not know about portrayals of the present. I still vividly remember discussing Hayek in the 1960s. My counterpart focused on Hayek's so-called claim that I should pay for others' external costs, using the word `external' in accounting and economists' jargon: not counted as the cost of an enterprise directly, but effecting others. The traditional example is when a company does not pay for the costs imposed on others of pumping poisons into the air or water. For example, I should suffer without recompense being poisoned by a coal-fired electric generating plant so long as others could not predict exactly that I should be the person poisoned. (If another could determine that I was an intended victim, the process could be judged as attempted murder.) I falsely thought Hayek said this. However, on reading Hayek, I found him much more a Rooseveltian character. He did not focus much on externalities, but when he did, he did not put a burden on others. My counterpart, who was not evil, thought of the human world as infinite and flat -- that is to say, one with a frontier. In such a world, externalities may well be minor or non-existant. So he skipped Hayek's comments about externalities. To some extent, my interlocutor's beliefs were based on perceived reality for rural people. When I grew up, there were no evident externalities from my putting chemicals on a fire to make different colors or from my putting out a fire with a carbon tetrachloride fire extinguisher. As they left the fire, the waste products diluted themselves. But externalities exist and are more trouble now than in the past. (Obviously, my interlocutor did not think of Victorian cities or of the present.) So this part of North fits what I know. North's emphasis ... on the sharp divide between institutions constructed to deal with uncertainties that are a consequence of the physical environment and those constructed to deal with the human environment ... is promising. I don't yet know where it will lead. (Please remember that North follows Knight's definition of uncertainty, in which no probability distribution exists. This is different from modern use, in which uncertainty refers to risk and ambiguity refers to what Knight called uncertainty.) Next, North looks toward the sources of beliefs that lead to institutions. This fits his focus, stated on page 1, that ... the key to improving economic performance, is the deliberate effort of human beings to control their environment. North weighs in on the nature-nuture controversy that is so important to Americans on the right and left. For example, he looks to evolutionary theories, which are a favorite of feudalists and others who have supported North in the past. But North sees the `nature' side as providing predispositions and the `nurture' side as explaining why we see such immense variation. Thus, North says on pages 29 - 30, The most important contribution of the evolutionary psychologist is explicating the underlying inference structure of the mind that appears to account for the predisposition of the mind to entertain and construct non-rational beliefs such as supernatural explanations and religions that underlie so much of the decision framework of individuals, groups, and organizations in societies. and on page 30, The immense variation, however, in the performance characteristics of political/economic units over time makes clear that the Lamarkian characteristics of culture must also be central to the understanding of the process. The exact mixture between the genetic predispositions and the cultural imperatives is far from resolved ... Then North refers to Friedrich A. Hayek. While I think of North's mentioning of Hayek as similar to that of a Czech economist I heard in the 1960s, who began his speech by praising the wisdom of the Czech communist part and the central
Re: RIP Ed
On 25 Nov 2005, at 4:34 am, Doug Pensinger wrote: William wrote: He will be cremated and we will scatter his ashes at one of his favourite walks. He had a good life right up until the end and we'll miss him. I'm very sorry for your loss, William. Did you have him since he was a pup? We had him since he was four, a retired racing dog. A friend has a rescue Greyhound; they're beautiful, affectionate dogs. They are indeed. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ I have always wished that my computer would be as easy to use as my telephone. My wish has come true. I no longer know how to use my telephone. - Bjarne Stroustrup ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Santa Claus air traffic will delay flights - no, really
http://www.azcentral.com/offbeat/articles/1125santaflights25-ON.html Norwegian aviation authorities on Thursday warned that Santa Claus flights could cause delays for airline passengers in December. It's not St. Nick or his flying reindeer sleigh that cause the problem each year, but thousands of tourists flying through Norwegian airspace each year to reach Santa's village on the Arctic Circle in Finland. About 600,000 people a year visit the Finnish tourist attraction near Rovaniemi, with about 250 charter flights in December alone. Most come from Britain with a peak of more than 30 extra planes an hour taking the shortest route to the Finnish Arctic, which is over southern Norway. Officials said that can overload air traffic control capacity and delay some Norwegian flights. xponent HO HO HO Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Santa Claus air traffic will delay flights - no, really
Santa Claus is a myth is a myth - Anya, in some Buffy Season 4 or 5 Episode Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Bush claim revives al-Jazeera bombing fears
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1648988,00.html Claims that George Bush planned to bomb the Arabic TV news station al-Jazeera have fuelled concerns that an attack on the broadcaster's Baghdad offices during the war on Iraq was deliberate. An international journalists group today demanded complete disclosure from the British and American governments over reports that the US considered attacking the al-Jazeera HQ in the Qatar capital, Doha. The International Federation of Journalists claimed that 16 journalists and other media staff have died at the hands of US forces in Iraq, adding that the deaths had not been properly investigated. Al-Jazeera cameraman Tarek Ayoub was killed when the station's Baghdad office was bombed during a US air raid on April 8 2003. On the same day a US tank shelled the Palestine hotel in the Iraqi capital, killing two other journalists. Reports that George Bush and Tony Blair discussed a plan to bomb al-Jazeera reinforce concerns that the US attack in Baghdad on April 8 [2003] was deliberate targeting of the media, said Aidan White, the general secretary of the IFJ. If that is the case then the US is guilty of a gross violation of international humanitarian law and on the face of it the murder of an innocent journalist. The evidence is stacking up to suggest that the US decided to take out al-Jazeera in Baghdad, as a warning not only to them but to other media about their coverage. If true, it is an absolute scandal that the US administration can regard the staff of al-Jazeera as a bunch of terrorists and a legitimate target. Under the front page headline Bush plots to bomb his ally, the Daily Mirror claimed yesterday a leaked memo revealed that the US president last year discussed plans to attack al-Jazeera's Qatar HQ with Mr Blair. The Baghdad bombing of 2003 was the second attack by American forces on the offices of al-Jazeera. In 2001 the station's Kabul office was hit by two smart bombs in an attack that almost wrecked the nearby BBC bureau. Al-Jazeera said it had given the location of its offices in both Kabul and Baghdad to the authorities in Washington, but it had still been attacked. We have been campaigning vigorously for an independent inquiry into what happened in Baghdad on April 8 [2003]. Now is the time for the US to take responsibility and tell the world what actually happened, said Mr White. The public has a right to know whether politicians would seriously consider killing journalists in order to stifle independent or critical voices. In this particular case the family, friends and colleagues of the victim also have a right to justice. Incidents in which journalists are killed by combatants in conflict zones have to be properly and independently investigated. Investigations that are carried out by the military do not consider the full extent of the evidence and in almost every single case lead to the exoneration of the military involved. At best there is a shrug of regret about the consequences. Both the US and UK governments declined to comment on the Mirror's allegations. We are not going to dignify something so outlandish with a response, a White House official said. A Downing Street spokesman added: We have got nothing to say about this story. We don't comment on leaked documents. The attorney general last night threatened newspapers with the Official Secrets Act if they revealed the contents of a document allegedly relating to a dispute between Mr Blair and Mr Bush over the conduct of military operations in Iraq. ** http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/23/114622/13 If the story has no merit, why would the Brittish government threaten newspapers with prosecution under the Official Secrets Act? Suddenly, Eason Jordan doesn't seem like such a crackpot, does he? (Not that he ever did, despite the rightwing swarm against him.) And incidentally, the two Brits who leaked the memo detailing the argument between Bush and Blair over bombing Al Jazeera are already being prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act. It's real. * Now it becomes clearer why the supposedly Liberal Media treads so lightly around the Bush administration. Being bombed, or otherwise killed, or being arrested and possibly sent to some hideaway torture chamber is no laughing matter.And having your access to the administration inhibited leaves you will little to do but cut'n'paste, effectively damaging your effectiveness as a reporter. Purportedly, the terrorists hate us for our freedoms. But we have no problem doing to ourselves what terrorist would not be able to do, and doing unto innocent Moslems what we fear they might do to us. The noose of a vicious circle tightens. xponent When The Dogs Of War Come Home To Roost Maru rob ___
Re: Bush claim revives al-Jazeera bombing fears
Robert G. Seeberger wrote: Purportedly, the terrorists hate us for our freedoms. But we have no problem doing to ourselves what terrorist would not be able to do, and doing unto innocent Moslems what we fear they might do to us. It seems that I am reading The Sound of His Wings... Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bush claim revives al-Jazeera bombing fears
Alberto Monteiro wrote: Robert G. Seeberger wrote: Purportedly, the terrorists hate us for our freedoms. But we have no problem doing to ourselves what terrorist would not be able to do, and doing unto innocent Moslems what we fear they might do to us. It seems that I am reading The Sound of His Wings... You will have to explain that to me. I come away completely clueless here. xponent Duhs Ensue Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: They've cloned the president
Dan wrote: I did this out of order because I think this exchange fits perfectly well with my hypothesis: GWB knew Hussein was behind the attack; just as he knew that Hussein's WMD program was well advanced. I am not defending his judgement; I think that his judgement in this case was horrible. If he were pushing Clark to find evidence of links between Hussein and the attacks of AQ before 9-11, then I think that there would be an arguement for a pre-set plan to find enough evidence to stage a war against Hussein. But, if it only happened after 9-11, and Bush's other rhetoric indicated a massive change in attitude, then I think that it is reasonable to accept his statement that 9-11 changed everything. For him, it certainly seemed to. First, you're basing your massive change in attitude on statements made about nation building in the heat of a political campaign and as we all know, the sincerity of campaign utterances is by definition, suspect. Second, if you dig deeper into the Clarke statements as well as allegations made by Paul O'Niel, you _will_ find a greater interest in Iraq than in Al Quaeda/Bin Laden prior to 911. Third, immediately after 911 you not only have Bush telling Clarke to find an Iraq connection you have Rumsfeld asking aids to come up with plans to strike Iraq _despite_ being told that the terrorists were probably Al Qaeda and not Iraqi. Fourth, you have the PNAC stuff - the stated intention by several high level members of the administration along with his brother t to project US power across the globe. For instance, in a letter to Clinton in January of '78 signed by Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Bolton they wrote “The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term it means removing Sadam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy. And finally you have the build up to invasion during which intelligence was manipulated in a manner that promoted the justification for invasion. So you have four data points that suggest that the invasion of Iraq was a priority and one series of general campaign statements that suggest otherwise. It depends on what you mean by experts. The head of the CIA vetted Bush's conclusions. Specialists and people closer to the working end of intelligence (e.g. Curveball's handlers) had quite a few caveats that Bush ignored/removed. Did you read this link that I posted the other day? http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=248339 ...newly declassified information from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) from February 2002 shows that, at the same time the Administration was making its case for attacking Iraq, the DIA did not trust or believe the source of the Administration’s repeated assertions that Iraq had provided al-Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. Additional newly declassified information from the DIA also undermines the Administration’s broader claim that there were strong links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. The CIA also had reservations about the source. The CIA’s unclassified statement at the time was that the reporting was “credible,” a statement the Administration used repeatedly. However, what was selectively omitted was the CIA’s view at the time that the source was not in a position to know whether any training had taken place. That DIA finding is stunningly different from repeated Administration claims of a close relationship between Saddam and al-Qaeda,” Levin said. “Just imagine the impact if that DIA conclusion had been disclosed at the time. It surely could have made a difference in the congressional vote authorizing the war.” One of the reasons I'm thinking that he was correcting for the inherent bias towards not making concluisons is the fact that inteligence has been slow on pulling the trigger when they had information that, in retrospect, pointed to what was happening. Let me give three examples: the fall of the Berlin wall, the nuclear test of India, the nuclear test of Pakistan. The CIA gave the president a heads up on none of these. In every one of these cases, our intelligence community had significant indications before the event, but didn't give them enough weight. Concurrent with the Iraq war, the intelligence community totally missed Libia's advanced nuclear program. They were only a year or so away from an A-bomb when the came in out of the cold. So, Bush is conviced that the experts are too timid to make conclusions. There is at least a bit of justification for this. I have a friend who was with the CA just before that time and he said that the lack of a heads-up was more a matter of being timid than not having the signs. But, he did a horrible
Re: They've cloned the president
On 24 Nov 2005, Dan Minette wrote Look at Brin's arguments here. He claims that two generations of Bush's are traitors ... Both Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. were tools of Saudi Arabia, and governed the US's foreign policy according to the orders they were given ... This is not what I remember. It may be that we have seen different stories, since Brin said that he was trying to provoke thinking more than anything else. As I remember, the older Bush was not an issue. The younger Bush was not being bribed but blackmailed: the thesis was that a Saudi prince got something on him before Bush was `born again', probably a photograph during a party -- something that even now would damage him in the eyes of a major constituency. (The ideas are that the constituency does not realize the degree to which photographs can be faked and the Bush people do not think they could lie well about something that actually happened. They certainly would deny a genuinely faked photograph well.) In Middle Eastern dictatorships, the only way to change government has been through conspiracy, so the expectation of a conspiracy makes sense. In an open democracy, it is better to presume that a ruler you dislike has an incompetent admistration or a different policy. The question is whether the US govenment has changed enough so that a conspiracy involving no more than a few people is enough to affect US policy? A second question is whether the Saudi's belief system would lead to the kinds of actions the US has undertaken? On the one hand is the evidence of an increase in petroleum prices. This is especially important if Saudi oil depletion is high -- if they must drill many new wells to keep production rates level or rising. On the other hand, the Saudis would be against a war `fought by the US and won by Iran', which is how some describe the current situation. But perhaps the Saudi government did not expect the situation in which the US finds itself? You could presume that the Saudis expected that the US would fight and continue to fight a colonial war without doing anything to upset them. That would not contradict the notion that Bush did what the Saudis sought originally, but not support it either. However, (to use US military concepts) it is easier to presume that Bush and the rest of the US administration focused ahead of time on stage III of the conflict, which ended in the middle of April 2003, not on stage IV, the follow up. Rather than see order, law, electricity, and the like, as critical military issues requiring more US troops, and rather than note that no contemporary country fights a symmetrical war against the US (since its generals know it will lose), but fights a longer, asymmetrical war instead, they foresaw crowds like those in France and Holland welcoming US soldiers in 1944. They did not consider the practicalities of the occupation. One argument is that the time horizon of critical people in the US administration was short, so in January and February of 2003, when major decisions were made, none thought about May, June, and July of 2003. Another argument is that before March 2003, the responsible people in the US administration modeled their sense of reality on US war movies or Tom Clancy novels -- not necessarily consciously, but in practice -- and made decisions accordingly. -- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Brin: Re: Bush claim revives al-Jazeera bombing fears
Robert Seeberger wrote: Purportedly, the terrorists hate us for our freedoms. But we have no problem doing to ourselves what terrorist would not be able to do, and doing unto innocent Moslems what we fear they might do to us. It seems that I am reading The Sound of His Wings... You will have to explain that to me. I come away completely clueless here. The Sound of His Wings is Heinlein's _unwritten_ story [or should I say history?] about the rise of Nehemiah Scudder. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Re: Bush claim revives al-Jazeera bombing fears
Alberto Monteiro wrote: Robert Seeberger wrote: Purportedly, the terrorists hate us for our freedoms. But we have no problem doing to ourselves what terrorist would not be able to do, and doing unto innocent Moslems what we fear they might do to us. It seems that I am reading The Sound of His Wings... You will have to explain that to me. I come away completely clueless here. The Sound of His Wings is Heinlein's _unwritten_ story [or should I say history?] about the rise of Nehemiah Scudder. I've always had the damnedest time not bringing up Nehemiah Scudder when talking about politics lately. Luckily for us G. W. Bush doesn't have the Minister's charisma and charm that Scudder could exude. The one redeeming thing, at least, is that in all of Heinlein's major timelines where Scudder appeared the response a few years/decades later (often thanks to the Masons, interestingly enough) was Political Left, and a sometimes very hard left (the For Us, The Living timeline went semi-Socialist (full blown Social Credit for anyone who loves US-historical political parties)). Heinlein realized that the stupid populace might just vote for some rabid moron, but also realized that in Democracy there is always a second chance. (Even if you have to, as Thomas Jefferson realized, once and while bathe democracy in bloody revolt.) -- --Max Battcher-- http://www.worldmaker.net/ History bleeds for tomorrow / for us to realize and never more follow blind --Machinae Supremacy, Deus Ex Machinae, Title Track ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Association with PNAC
I am not sure I view this as idealism. It seems more of an excuse to increase military spending and carry a big stick and a big chip on the shoulder - perhaps the ultimate pragmatists. Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences: • we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future; • we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values; • we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad; • we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles. On 11/23/05, Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 10:52:27 -0600, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now, if they had worked for the think tank, did significant fund raising for that think tank, wrote papers put out by the think tank, then the association would be stronger, and may reflect a change in their philosophy. But, I really have a hard time picturing Rumsfeld or Cheney as starry-eyed idealists. :-) Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wofowitz and Jeb Bush were founding members and signitors of its statement of principals . How strong do you need the association to be? http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm -- Doug -- Gary Denton http://www.apollocon.org June 23-25, 2006 The budget should be balanced; the treasury should be refilled; public debt should be reduced; and the arrogance of public officials should be controlled. -Cicero. 106-43 B.C. Easter Lemming Liberal News Digest - http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Re: Bush claim revives al-Jazeera bombing fears
Heinlein was no leftist, any more than he was a right-winger. He was pro-future, pro-individualist. He often mentions a preference for market solutions to problems... but has nothing against a compassionate and rich society providing basic needs in a socialist manner. See BEYOND THIS HORIZON. The Scudder thing is becoming blatantly worrisome. Especially as 1/3 of the House of Representatives now appoints cadets to all three military academies whose sole common attribute is apocalyptic religious zealotry. That's a third of the new members of the officer corps. We have reasons for fear. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Re: Bush claim revives al-Jazeera bombing fears
I often think of Scudder these days. In reading *Why Hitler Came to Power* by Theodore Abel, a sociological study based on 600 autobiographies of members of the Nazi party published in 1938, I found differences between Germany in '35 and USA in 2005. Bush isn't quite as idealized as Germany's perpetual leader and the ideal of a Democratic Republic is not denigrated as much by America's radical rollback party. To say that democracy is praised and Bush isn't idealized by the right would be incorrect. US public schools present history as the stories of great leaders which is not a good thing at all and partially explains the idealization of our temporary political leaders and presidents. Spider Robinson - I've delivered the novel VARIABLE STAR by Robert A. Heinlein and Spider Robinson to editor Pat LoBrutto at Tor Books, more than two weeks before deadline; hardcover publication is scheduled for October 2006. Based on an outline Robert created in November 1955... -- Gary Denton http://www.apollocon.org June 23-25, 2006 The budget should be balanced; the treasury should be refilled; public debt should be reduced; and the arrogance of public officials should be controlled. -Cicero. 106-43 B.C. Easter Lemming Liberal News Digest - http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Star Trek: TOS *Season 4*
http://www.newvoyages.com/ Well...a group of fans set themselves to finish the last two seasons of TOS original 5 year mission. It is being written up in the new Wired. (Pretty big article actually) I just watched ep2 (it is the only ep of the 3 made so far that is currently available. Here: http://www.kimaura.com/newvoyages/NewVoyages.html I recommend that at the very least you watch the trailers. (If you have Windows Media Player) My take: The acting is fairly poor. The script is pretty good for fanfic. The dialogue is worse than any by G.Lucas. The special effects range from OK/good to damn impressive (Especially considering the amateur source) The plot gathers threads from all over TOS Trek. The War Machines (From the episode with William Windom who by the way reprises his character for a cameo here), The Time Gateway (from the ep with Joan Collins), the Slingshot Effect (from a couple of eps), and a few small items that I wouldn't want to spoil for anyone. The story would have been a moderate blockbuster episode of TOS in the sense that it is action oriented and a bit suspenseful. With some better actors and some sprucing of the script, this would have made a fairly good episode of TOS. It was good enough that I will go back to see more episodes as soon an they are available. There is a new Star Trek in town. xponent I Might Watch It Again Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Brin: Re: Bush claim revives al-Jazeera bombing fears
The fact that the community the Air Force Academy is located in is now also the training center for the new religious right bend on dominating American politics is also worrying. http://www.harpers.org/SoldiersOfChrist.html http://www.harpers.org/FeelingTheHate.html On 11/25/05, David Brin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Heinlein was no leftist, any more than he was a right-winger. He was pro-future, pro-individualist. He often mentions a preference for market solutions to problems... but has nothing against a compassionate and rich society providing basic needs in a socialist manner. See BEYOND THIS HORIZON. The Scudder thing is becoming blatantly worrisome. Especially as 1/3 of the House of Representatives now appoints cadets to all three military academies whose sole common attribute is apocalyptic religious zealotry. That's a third of the new members of the officer corps. We have reasons for fear.-- Gary Denton http://www.apollocon.org June 23-25, 2006 The budget should be balanced; the treasury should be refilled; public debt should be reduced; and the arrogance of public officials should be controlled. -Cicero. 106-43 B.C. Easter Lemming Liberal News Digest - http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
