dresese

How to believe

I recently have been annoyed by reading debates on global warming. Is there anything more tedious, more annoying, and more pointless than trying to convince a global warming skeptic of the reality of the situation? It is as absurd as arguing with creationists, UFO true believers, or conspiracy theorists.

There is one mistake people always make in arguing with these people: they argue about facts. This may seem like a strange thing for me to say, because a rational argument depends on facts and logic. However, arguing facts and logic is incorrect when laypeople argue about complex scientific topics. Take the global warming case for example. What often happens is that a skeptic will jump in and wave some facts around and proclaim that it's all a big lie. There's no danger, etc, etc. Someone will attempt to counter those claims. Neither party knows anything about climatology. The debate will drag on, because someone on the internet who has an agenda and is reasonably intelligent can avoid being cornered by the debate and proven wrong.

This is the way it always goes. Endless debates. But let us ponder what should happen. First of all, is a debate by parties who don't have any fundamental understanding of a complicated science such as climatology really a valid debate? Of course it is not. The skeptic will of course not admit they have no training to judge the merits of their claims. And once they start an argument, no one is going to demure to argue just because they also have no expertise. After all, if the skeptic can start it, then why can't they join in the debate? It would be better, though, if the response is to merely say that no one participating has expertise in the field, and therefore the debate is meaningless. Anyone who wishes to take issue with the scientific consensus could write a letter to a scientific journal, or go back to school to acquire the knowledge participate in the process as an equal.

To acknowledge that you cannot debate such a thing requires a certain amount of humility. You have to realize you don't know much about this subject. You are not qualified to judge the merits of facts and arguments made. The best you can hope to do is to base your beliefs on experts. This is perfectly logical to do, even though proof by appeal to authority is fallacious. The difference is that no one is trying to prove anything, merely to point to authorities as spokespeople for the scientific process, which is itself the proof. Parties that want to examine the proof can acquire training in the field, and examine the scientific papers in question. I recommend Bruno Latour's Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts for a description of the relationship of scientific process to reality.

A reasonable person should choose what to believe by examining what people who are experts in this subject believe. It might be that those experts are wrong. The status quo should be challenged. But it should be challenged from a position of expertise, not ignorance. We should all be humble enough to acknowledge our limitations and simply quit engaging in endless internet arguments.

The End of Poverty

Last week I saw Columbia economics professor Jeffrey Sachs speak on his book The End of Poverty, and it was one of the best talks I've been to. Although I had believed, from the title of the book, that he was undoutedly an idealist, it turned out he really was just talking about ending extreme poverty. He defined extreme poverty as poverty so bad you can die from it.

Sachs has a similar viewpoint to Jared Diamond. He's very interested in why the extremely poor have gotten that way. Identifying the root causes, he believes that a small amount of money to fix the root causes can start these areas on the road to success. This was not a dull policy talk, though. He described in very emotional terms the suffering he has seen in the extremely poor areas of Africa.

One of the areas he talked most about was agriculture in Africa. Unlike India, Africa never had a Green revolution. Today, they use substandard varieties of crops, and no fertilizer. They are, he said, simply mining the ground. Simply using fertlizer should double the food output. Using new seed varieties (hybrids, not genetically modified crops) could result in a five-fold increase.

Another interesting problem was what he called the "disease burden" of Africa, which is unique. For example, malaria exists in India, but the mosquitos there bite cattle 70% of the time. Malaria transmission requires two human bites in a row, so there is only a 9% chance of transmission. Due to another disease in Africa which attacks cattle, there hasn't historically been any cattle in Africa, which means the mosquitos there evolved to attack humans exclusively. The malaria transmission rate therefore is 100% in Africa, since two consecutive mosquito bites will always be between two humans. Sachs said that with just a cheap mosquito net, which costs $5, lasts for years, and can protect two children at a time, the malaria problem can be greatly reduced.

Sachs believes that extreme poverty is solvable by the year 2020, and it only requires the political will to spend the money necessary. It won't be much money overall, but quite a bit more than we are spending right now. I don't know if I believe that extreme poverty can be solved so quickly. After all, there is still a significant amount of extreme poverty in India, which has been doing fairly well economically for a while. However, I can believe that by 2020 we can at least see the light at the end of the tunnel.

A historian takes on the JFK conspiracy nuts

In the laundry room of my apartment building, there is a bookcase where people put fairly random books. Mostly they are mysteries or spy thrillers, but occasionally there are a few gems. One of the more unusual books I've picked up is The Historian As Detective, a collection of essays by historians that shed light on the historian's technique.

I'm in the middle of reading this book right now, and am currently reading an essay by Prof. John Kaplan of Stanford University on the JFK conspiracy books. Back when I started undergrad, I very much believed that there was a conspiracy, but after reading alt.conspiracy.jfk, I saw great usenet warriors Brian Holtz and John McAdams argue the conspiracy mongers into the ground. That, together with the conspiracy mongers' own bizarre behavior, which included frequent accusations of various people being CIA disinformation agents, made me realize where the truth lay.

At any rate, back to the book. So, I've always wondered what serious historians think of the JFK conspiracy hubbub. Well, at least John Kaplan doesn't think much of it. He brilliantly dismantles the most popular conspiracy books. My favorite quote, about Lane's Rush To Judgement:

Lane's argument about the smoke over the knoll is equally interesting. Actually, it was not disputed that there was a puff above the knoll... The Commission did not attempt to deny this. Lane's slight of hand is going from the smoke to the assumption that the puff came from a gun fired at the President.... unless the assassin fired a fifteenth-century harquebus it is hard to see how a shot fired at the President could have made as much smoke as Lane implies was visible.

I love a good debunking.

Voting

For a while now, I've been thinking about voting. A while ago, I made the fairly logical conclusion that there is no point in voting. I think the reasons for this are fairly simple: one vote does not make any difference. And although if many people came to the same conclusion, there certainly could be problems, one person is not everyone. Pretty much the same arguments are made in the latest Freakonomics column in the New York Times.

However, recently I've begun to realize that I was in error. The logical error in my previous thinking, and also in the Freakonomics column, is that no man is an island. If I don't vote, then my attitudes about voting may influence my friends to not vote. If they don't vote, maybe it's not a huge deal, but then they might influence their friends not to vote. Eventually, if the "not voting" meme spreads, this becomes a big deal, capable of influencing elections at any level. What I've described is a simple network that acts by contagion. I think the notion of contagion is what is missing from the Freakonomics column.

One might say that the best thing to do is to say you voted, but don't actually vote. While that seems pretty logical, I think honesty is persuasive. The "voting" meme will be more powerful if people actually honestly believe in it.

New York Mayoral Election

I'm still not sure who I'm going to vote for in the upcoming New York mayoral election. On one hand, Republican candidate Michael Bloomberg is not bad, and in fact has done some great things for New York, notably the smoking ban and 311. On the other hand, he's a Republican, has publicly supported Bush, and seems to be ignoring the subways. Fernando Ferrer, the Democrat, seems quite good too, though. On the other hand, he's an unknown quantity.

Then there's Jimmy McMillan, who, according to my voter information packet, is from the "Rent is Too Damn High Party". I quote from the packet:

What is the most important issue in the city you would address if elected?RENT is Too Damn High there is nothing else to talk about. All poor people are being ran out of New York.

What other important issues would you address if elected?RENT Is Too Damn High there is nothing else to talk about.

The guy's got a point.

Well, so, I may vote for Republican, which I haven't done in a while. Strangely enough, the other Republican candidate for Mayor, Thomas V. Ognibene seems quite reasonable as well, even complaining about the "laissez-faire" attitude that spawns big-box retail in the area. I guess in New York, Republicans are just another kind of Democrat.

For the mayoral election, it really doesn't matter who I vote for anyway. Bloomberg will definitely will big.

Another weird thing: Bernie Geotz is running for Public Advocate. You can check out his website, which has a list of his plans to encourage napping, promote vegetarianism, and other ideas, some more well thought out than others.

What's the Matter with Kansas

I finally got a chance to read the great book What's the Matter with Kansas by Thomas Frank. It is an interesting analysis, especially so since it was written before the 2004 election, and so accurately called it. While everyone, myself included, were stunned by "values" voters who turned out in huge numberes for Bush, this was predicted exactly by Frank.

He describes the "backlash" movement, a movement against all-powerful liberals on the East Coast and in Hollywood. The backlash's belives that liberals are the cause of moral decay, instead of capitalism - that is, market forces. In Kansas, the backlash is a product of the poorest counties, who churn out incredibly hard-working activists to elect Christian Republicans. The Republicans then go ahead and help out the richest in Kansas, and of course nothing is ever done about values. Nothing can be done about them, abortion is not about to go away, and neither is "moral decay". And that's the beautiful thing, as far as the Republican effort is concerned. Since nothing will be done about it, the candidates always have an indefeatable, amorphous enemy to stir up anger against, and the anger is what keeps getting them elected.

In Kansas, the battle is lost between Democrats and Republicans, there are pretty much only Republicans. There are only moderate Republicans and conservative Republicans, differentiated by their stances on abortion and other social issues.

One thing Frank only briefly touches on is anti-semitism, which seems to me an obvious force in all this. I mean, in the campaign trail you saw clip after clip of Bush going to small towns in "the Heartland", and saying that the people there "are the real Americans", not those people in Hollywood and the East Coast. Combining that with the backlash's hatred of "liberals", "East-Coast elites", Hollywood, and "intellectuals", I'm wondering if all how all things that Bush and the backlash decry are things associated with us Jews. Or perhaps it is just coincidence?

At any rate, it is interesting to see this take on things. The diagnosis seems obviously right, since it has proven predictive power. Looking at things in this way, would the best candidate for the Democrats last election have been Gephardt? The solution, for Democrats to talk much more about class differences, and to be less business-oriented, however, may not be correct. Did the Democrats become more pro-business because of the money, as Frank implies, or because the new-Deal approach is discredited? It is an interesting discussion, and one that should seriously happen.

More thoughts on the election

I've been read a lot and thinking a lot about the future of the Democratic party. So I'm going to write a summary of what I think should be the strategy for the next Presidential election.

First, I think it's clear that we lost big in rural America. We need to do better. I remember when Clinton was first in the White House, everyone kind of thought he was a country hick. We need another country hick, preferably a very religious one. If there was a white Rev. Al Sharpton out there, that would be perfect. I really respect Sharpton, but he has too much baggage from his activist past. I know a lot of people want Hillary to run, but she is totally wrong for this, and conservatives, and even many liberals dislike her.

Second, I think we need to be more socially conservative. Much as I hate to say it, and much as I think most social conservatism is just a more socially acceptable kind of bigotry or misogyny. However, I think it is clear that gay marriage is a dead issue. The most we can hope for is to not have a constitutional amendment. Against the advice of Clinton, Kerry didn't back local bans on gay marriage. One thing is for sure, Kerry's principled stand didn't matter much to gays - while 25% backed Bush in 2000, still 23% backed him in 2004.

Similarly, I think we can make some compromises on abortion. If the country gets more liberal in the future, we can always have gay marriage and partial-birth abortions later. But that probably won't happen. Although some say that the younger generation is less socially conservative, I think this will be balanced out by increased Hispanic immigration. Plus, there's no guarantee that young people will stay socially liberal as they get older. If they do, then great, we just move back over to the left.

One of the books I heard about before the election, but pooh-poohed, was What's the matter with Kansas? by Thomas Frank. It's a book about how Kansas was once one of the most radical, left-wing places in the country, but the GOP co-opted the populist message, and turned Kansas against the "liberal elites". The GOP, who of course are nothing but elites themselves, thereby kept persuading Kansas to vote for things that are not in the people's interest. It is something the left has always wondered, how the GOP manages to persuade poor rural people to vote for things like tax breaks to rich businessmen. The argument seemed unconvincing to me, but after the election it is obvious he was right on target. I haven't read the book yet, but I mean to.

Fuck!

Yet another in a long series of disappointments. Technically, the election isn't over, though. From the trend I see, I would be extremely surprised if Kerry won. And the popular vote makes clear that Bush is preferred. Maybe not by a landslide, but by a very comfortable margin. I really don't get it. Somehow the Democrats screwed up. And they screwed up something that was almost a sure thing. The President is obviously incompetent, the economy is poor, the debates were a victory for Democrats. But it all didn't matter somehow.

What amazes me is how wrong everything was. The youth turnout was supposed to be huge. Everyone reported it. Evidently, it didn't happen. The undecideds were supposed to break for the challenger, but this time they broke for the incumbent. It was supposed to be at least a close race, and it really wasn't. I'm not sure what to think of all this. I'd love to see an analysis of how we lost so badly.

So the country continues its conservative trend. I thought it would rebound a bit from 2002, but boy was I wrong. I'm not sure what the Democrats could possibly do to combat this.

The only upside: now Bush has to clean up his own mess in Iraq. It will be amusing to see him fail.

Pre-election jitters

I'm a bit nervous about the election. My instinct is that Kerry will win. Not only because I want him to win, but I think he has a good shot. The polls are dead even, however the common wisdom is that undecided break for the challenger. I also think that minorities, incensed at the continuous efforts of Republicans to exclude them from the election in 2000, and the ongoing efforts to exclude them now, will turn out in large numbers. If Kerry doesn't pull ahead, I think it is going to be so close that there will be vote-counting lawsuits in several states, and we won't know who won until December at least.

I have a lot emotionally vested in this election. With the scandal-ridden 2000 election, the Republican victories in 2002, the California recall, and the gay-marriage amendments, it's been four years of political humiliation for me. If Kerry wins I'll be dancing in the streets, and if he loses I'll bury my woes in beer. This is better than sports.

The truth of Dr. Strangelove

The New York Times has an interesting article about the movie Dr. Strangelove, and how it is more factual than most people would guess. When you think about facts that have since come out, like the fact that the "secret unlock code" was "00000000", it seems that there was more stupidity around nuclear weapons than even Dr. Strangelove could satirize. The movie, by the way, is enjoying a release of a brand new 35mm print and will be in New York all next week.

Soros vs. Moon

I always seem to here the argument these days that both Republicans and Democrats have the same problems, both are mean-spirited, or dishonest or whatever. This may be true in a trivial sense, but I think Republicans are much worse. For example, here's a funny look at liberal philanthropist George Soros vs conservative philanthropist Sun Myung Moon.

Looking for action

I went by Madison Square Garden yesterday at lunch, and I saw a few items of interest, but no protests. It turns out I missed all the action yesterday. I did see a ton of cops, however, and many street closures. Did I mention a ton of cops? Because at one corner there was at least 50, all holding their riot-gear helmets. When I left they were all filing into a big truck. I also saw Republican protests shouting at people to not believe Michael Moore's lies, and that Bush is all about the truth. I guess some people will believe anything.

Protests

I haven't seen much unusual today. I noticed that parts of 8th Ave were blocked off, but everything seems calm.

I should have gone to the protest on Sunday. Supposedly, about half a million people showed up, in the biggest protest New York has seen in decades. My friend Eric came from San Francisco to take pictures of it, and they are already up on his site. Check it out, it is truly awe inspiring!

Republican Convention

Everyone is getting a bit edgy about the upcoming Republican Convention. Many people at work are choosing that week for their vacation, and those of us that are staying don't know what to expect. I see signs for the convention already that have some transit info. The stop by my office has one. At the top it has the heading "Republican Convention", under which someone wrote "not welcome". Indeed, almost everyone except for the mayor seems to bristle at how the Republicans are coming here, to shamelessly invoke the memory of 9/11 for partisan purposes, even though most here hate them.

There are going to be huge protests, but still I'm not sure if people know where yet. Things are already getting a bit crazy. At lunch I shared a table in Chinatown with some Republican types evidently from the courthouse nearby. They were talking about how 8 people streaked across one of the avenues today, and had to be taken in. They clearly despised the protesters. Which I guess is fair, since the I'm sure the protesters despised people like them.

So everyone is nervous about what could happen. Even politically nervous, since if there is chaos on the streets, it could give the left a bad enough image to cost Kerry the election. What happened in Chicago '68 seems to be discussed a lot these days.

I'm not nervous enough to avoid Manhattan, but I do hope everything goes smoothly, and the protests are peaceful. What I think needs to happen is to get across to America at large how New York does not like Bush, how Bush has screwed New York, and how the city hardest hit by terrorism wants Bush out. I actually plan to go to a weekday protest, if I can see one. I probably can, I'm fairly close to Madison Square Garden. The big protest will be on Sunday, but it's hard for me to get out.

Damn you Missouri

An amendment to ban gay marriage has overwhelmingly passed in Missouri. I'm comfortable with Missouri not being a very liberal state, but does it have to lead the way in bigotry? They say Missouri is a nice place to be from, but sometimes I'm not sure.

Republican comment spam?

Strange, I just got a comment that was suspiciously off-topic and well-written, from a officer in Iraq detailing how they are helping people, etc. It was posted to my blog entry about Bush lying about the Iraq war. I've deleted the comment. However, I was suspicious about it, and did a search on it, and lo and behold, it appears everywhere! Evidently it is part of an old Republican form letter, that you can see fooled a lot of newspapers. Amazing that this is still going around, now electronically. I don't yet know if this is a new kind of spam, or else someone cut & pasted it after reading my blog.

This blog may be a shoddy work, but at least I can catch Republican form letters better than the average newspaper.

At City Hall

At lunchtime yesterday, I went down to City Hall to see the scene there. Since the city started marrying gay people there last week, there have been a huge turnout of people wanting to get married, and of course the Christian protesters one would expect at such a thing.

When I went there, the first thing I saw was Frank Chu, with his usual sign about the 12 galaxies. I suppose I should have expected it. On the steps of city hall itself, there was a sizable crowd of well-wishers. People honked their support as they drove by. In the middle of the crowd were Christians with huge signs about how homosexuals were going to hell. There was another sign off to the side in support of gay marriage. Whenever a couple came out after getting married, everyone would cheer. There was even a band playing!

Even with the protesters, it was just a great vibe in that place. Everyone was so happy, and the couples coming out had huge smiles. I only hope it can last for a while longer. I have a feeling it will probably end this next week. Although San Francisco supports it, the rest of the state does not, and the rest of the country really doesn't. So I don't know whether I saw the start of gay marriage in this country, or just the first abortive attempt at it. I think that eventually it will be legal, I can only hope it will be soon. But I'm very happy I could see what must be a pivotal moment in the movement. Thank you, Gavin Newsom, and thank you San Francisco!

Anti-Bush flash with Skinny Puppy

I just discovered a nice anti-Bush flash animation on Bush's environmental record with music by Skinny Puppy. That's a bit unusual. But a lot of Skinny Puppy's music seems particularly appropriate these days.

More cheap eats from Chinatown

I've discovered another ultra-cheap eatery in Chinatown, where I can get a lunch for around $3.50. It's called Hon's Wun Ton House, on Kearny. It's a cheap noodle place, just the kind I like. Ever since I moved from the south bay, I've missed Tung Kee's ultra-cheap noodles. And actually the soup selection is better than at Tung Kee, I think. Now I have two cheap options - Dim Sum at Stockton, or soup on Kearny. I still need to try "Dol Ho", which is supposed to be a good cheap dim sum in Chinatown, but probably not quite as cheap as the ones I have started to frequent.

Speaking of dim sum, I ate at Yang Sing a few weeks ago. It was pricey. I paid $20, but I could have eaten more. The dim sum was quite good. They had a lot of stuff I've never seen before, like Striped Bass steamed dumplings (interesting taste, but I preferred the firmer texture of shrimp). They also had lobster dumplings and a few other types, but I didn't want to overspend. Besides the nice variety of dumplings, they had most of the rest of the standard dim sum fare, and some other more western-style items such as a portabella mushroom baked with cheese (delicious). They didn't have some of the more interesting dim sums items such as tofu soup, pork meatballs, or bowls of tripe. Everything they did have was very elegantly executed, and it all tasted clean and light. They also had a nice innovation in the way of tea serving, where their teapot for the table was clear. That way, servers would know exactly when to replace it without having to be asked (either verbally or by opening up the teapot lid). Great idea.

The Straight Dope on Crichton's claims

Although I'm unsure why anyone should pay any special attention to what Michael Crichton says, his recent speech to the Commonwealth Club has generated a lot of interest. It's always interesting when yet another non-scientist takes on the whole field of environmental science. This thread as well as this one on the Straight Dope Message Boards seeks to determine the veracity of Crichton's statements.

My personal view is that Crichton doesn't know what the hell he is talking about. But wait a second, that's not a view, that's reality. He doesn't pretend to be an expert on any of these subjects he pontificates about, yet people take him seriously for some reason.

Protest in Burlingame

Eric Wagner once again has the pictures from the latest protest, this one very close to home for me. It took place on June 27th, in Burlingame, a few miles north of where I live. Bush drove into town for a fund-raising lunch at a hotel near the airport, then left for more fund-raising in L.A. It's pleasing to see that Bush is not exactly getting a warm reception wherever he goes.

George W. Bush, scientist

Accoring to the New York Times, the White House has significantly altered an EPA report on the environment to play down global warming.

Among the deletions were conclusions about the likely human contribution to warming from a 2001 report on climate by the National Research Council that the White House had commissioned and that President Bush had endorsed in speeches that year. White House officials also deleted a reference to a 1999 study showing that global temperatures had risen sharply in the previous decade compared with the last 1,000 years. In its place, administration officials added a reference to a new study, partly financed by the American Petroleum Institute, questioning that conclusion.

Is there any doubt that Bush is a stooge of industry, and is not interested in an honest account of the environment?

Bush comes to Silicon Valley

President Bush visited Silicon Valley today. I find it amusing that of all the places he could have visited, he chose a defense contractor, United Defense Industries. One of the few places he could find a warm reception. If he went to a more typical Silicon Valley haunt, like SGI, or Sun, he would be shunned. I'd like to think he'd get booed out of the theatre, but geeks tend not be so vocal about their political beliefs.

Of course, it's ironic that he said that he knows how Silicon Valley is hurting to United Defense Industries, who undoubtedly is doing quite well thanks to Bush's policies. He knows how Silicon Valley is hurting, but he doesn't go to anyplace that is actually hurt. Well, I guess the smiling faces and loud cheers are more important to him then facing the realities of the valley.

Protesters were present outside, of course. The pictures aren't up, but I'm sure that by tomorrow basetree.com will have them, since I know Eric went down there this morning.

Three strikes for corporate criminals

Rare is the news item these days that makes me happy. But here's one (found via plastic.com) about California proposing to implement a three strikes law for corporate criminals. After 3 felony convictions, a company may no longer do business in the state of California. After the first two convictions, the company must purchase an ad in California's largest newspaper listing their convictions. This hasn't passed yet, but it's passed the Senate Judiciary Committee, and is on it's way to the Senate. I don't have high hopes that it will be passed, but it will be an amazing triumph for the consumer if it does.

Suburbs are bad for you

The USA today has an article on something I've been saying for years: suburbs are bad for your health. It's quite obvious, really. The nature of suburbs is that they are spread out, therefore it's almost impossible to walk anywhere. Since no one can walk anywhere to accomplish a daily activity, walking gets relegated to something that people really should do, as opposed to an integral part of everyday life. Therefore, almost no one walks.

There are things suburbs can do to alleviate it, but probably the best you can do is to lessen it somewhat. I doubt the suburbs can ever be transformed into walkable areas. The blocks are too long, the roads are too wide, and the surroundings are dreadfully boring. And to increase the walkability is fundamentally at odds with what people want from the suburbs. As the article states:

Also, the main component of walkable neighborhoods is density, or the number of people per mile square but density is what many homebuyers are trying to get away from. "It's just our own definition of what the good life includes, which is a couple of cars and a house on the cul-de-sac," says Kraft of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. "The good life means you can be a couch potato."

I think this is starting to change. After all, most people don't think the good life includes an hour and a half commute each way, but that's what it takes in many places to get an affordable house in a typical quiet suburban neighborhood. Of course, many die hard suburbanites would still rather have the nice affordable suburban house even if it means wasting 3 hours a day in traffic. But other people are realizing that the urban experience can be very rewarding, and that a 5 bedroom 3000 square foot house is not truly necessary. It's not only more interesting, it's frequently more convenient, and it's more healthy.

Life imitates Ultima VII

A mysterious religious group called "The Fellowship", deeply involved in politics, yet whose workings are shrouded in secrecy. Yes, that's the plot of Origin's Ultima VII (one of the greatest RPG's of all time), and it looks like it's also actually happening (found via Metafilter). However, unlike the RPG, this Fellowship is a Christian fellowship. It's a typical modern day religious-political organization, who, like all political Christian, follow the tenents of "blessed are the rich and powerful". It's one of those weird Christian organizations where the answer to every question is Jesus. But the truly scary thing is how much power they have. Six congressmen live there, and world leaders regularly visit, and they run the "White House Prayer Breakfast". It's only a matter of time before they start hearing voices in their heads from someone who calls himself "The Guardian". OK, maybe that only happened in Ultima VII, but I wouldn't rule that sort of thing out.

Academy Awards

I think this year was the year I most enjoyed watching the Academy Awards. First interesting thing was Michael Moore's win and his impassioned speech against the war. Definitely the highlight of the evening. Not quite so sensational but still amazing was Adrian Brody's very wise speech, as well as the speech of the Oscar winners from Frida and Talk to Her. And Polanski winning the Best Director was a great moment. Bush, you don't know me, and I don't like you, but do me a favor and pardon the guy, will you? He's contributed so much to the world with his films, and he's suffered enough in his life.

One little thing I forgot to mention in my last entry about The Pianist. I'm a bit puzzled why people always read the "If you prick us, do we not bleed" part from Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice. That play is very clearly, and very strongly anti-semitic. Why, for instance, in The Pianist would Vladik's brother be reading it for comfort? And why would they quote again from this play during the Academy Awards snippet from the movie? I just don't get it.

The obligatory war post

Now that war has started, I feel I have to blog about it somehow. I'm not sure what there is to say. It seems like the Bush administration was going to go to war no matter what. No matter that Iraq has no connection to 9-11, or that Hans Blix says that Iraq was showing real cooperation, or that the evidence showing they were after nuclear weapons has fallen apart, or that the UN rejected this war. So what is there to say? What's the fucking point anyway, this invasion of Iraq could not have been stopped.

I remember reading Lies My Teacher Told Me. Towards the back, it had some interesting statistics about how people will tend to believe that the government is doing the right thing. For example, if the government has not said anything about Issue A, polls might show popular support at 50%. Then if the government supports Issue A, the popular support would skyrocket. Illogical, right? But obviously the same thing is happening with regards to the Iraq war. How many Americans supported invading Iraq 2 years ago? Now, it seems that 75% of Americans support this war. Would 75% have supported it two years ago? I sincerely doubt it. But those who didn't support it two years ago, and now support it , I wonder what the difference has been. It could be Bush's fear-mongering. It could be Bush's circular logic regarding inspections (We know they have WMD's, so if we don't find any that means we have proved they have hidden their WMD's). It could be public confusion between supporting the war and supporting the troops. I don't know what it is, but it certainly doesn't mean that the invasion is justified.

An Iraqi viewpoint

I remember when my father and I marched in the anti-war march in San Francisco, Feb 16th. The seemingly lone pro-war viewpoint came from a plane that flew twice overhead, trailing a banner with pro-war slogans. On the first flyover the banner said "Saddam gasses his own people". On that one, well, maybe, maybe not. The second said that "Iraqis says the protesters betray them". That second one seemed strange to me. That Iraqis might want regime change is not surprising. But the idea that they would actually want war, in which they would surely be caught in the middle, caused me to doubt the truth of the banner. After that, I heard of the Where is Raed blog. In Sunday's article Raed states what should be obvious to us. The people of Iraq do not want to have the world "bomb us to democracy". It's a good read, and to hear an Iraqi viewpoint is very refreshing.

On further reflection, that plane above the protest was such a good symbol for what is happening. While tens or hundreds of thousands were marching on their own two feet below, one person with enough money for a plane stated their right-wing message. It reminds me of how much more money the Republicans have. It reminds me of the superior technology of the US, who intends to impose its will on the rest of the world, protesters be damned. It reminds me that no matter how many people are on the ground protesting, the Republicans can use their money and their corporate connections to get their message out. And from the looks of things now, it seems like none of it mattered. Those in power in the US, the UK, and Spain are, like the plane, on a different level of existence. The will of the people mean nothing to them, and they fly above, pursuing their goals, where nothing can affect them.

My first protest

I'm ashamed to say that today was the first time I've been in a protest march. But I've been progressively more and more dismayed at the seemingly inevitable invasion of Iraq. When I heard about the anti-war rally in San Francisco, I knew it was time. Plus, my father was in town, and although he's not anti-war, he knew it would be a great experience to go there. So we went.

The march started, haltingly at first, but we slowly marched down the street to City Hall. There was many interesting things to be seen. The crowd itself was interesting, a mix of age groups, from mere babies to fairly old people. The signs were great. My personal favorites were one that said "I want to live in a democracy, not an empire". Another, along the same lines, had a quote by Thomas Jefferson: "The destiny of America is not empire, but light". One sign said simply, "No". There were many other interesting signs, too many to list here. Besides the signs, there were also dancers depicting bombing victims, sharply dressed men in suits covered in blood imploring people to give up and go back to shopping, and a whole line of people in George Bush masks. I have pictures of the last two.

When we got to City Hall, there was a massive crowd. It took at least a half hour to get close to the stage. Danny Glover was MC'ing the event, and Joan Baez was also there, along with other luminaries of the protest world I didn't quite know. My feet eventually got tired and my father and I went back to BART, where it was about 100 times more crowded then I've ever seen it. I happend to run into a researcher I knew at NASA, who was there with his wife, daughter, and parents. He was always running around the halls at NASA ranting about Republicans, so I probably could have expected to see him there.

According to the SF Gate article about the protest, about 200,000 people showed up. I can believe that. Of course the "liberal" CNN's headline on the main page of CNN.com says "Thousand rally in San Francisco to Protest War". Way to play down the numbers, CNN. Going to the actual CNN article the headline changes to "Tens of thousands in San Francisco say no to war". Shouldn't 200,000, or the 150,000 of the prior police estimate actually qualify as as "hundreds of thousands"? It just goes to show how the media is actually fairly conservative.

And then we get to hear about how all the protests, all over the world, have not swayed the administrations opinion. What's worse, even formerly respected allies like France and Germany are being insulted by US officials. Evidently, it is not important that most of the world, and large segments of the US population feel so strongly in opposition to the war as to march on the streets. Can someone explain how America loves democracy when we don't listen to world opinion, and don't listen to opinion at home?

At any rate, here are the pictures:

15 ways Bush lies about Iraq

This article from Democratic Underground exposes 15 ways Bush lies about Iraq. Why the Democratic mainstream is not calling Bush on this I dont know.

I heard Clinton say something very wise about it the other day, though. He thought we should give the inspections more time. He said something like "We can always kill people later. But we can't go back and bring them back to life after the fact."