So the theory that the use of marijuana makes people stupid has suffered yet another setback. (Of course, one of the supposedly definitive proofs of said theory was an experiment undertaken in the 70's while Ronald Reagan was governor of California that involved force feeding pure marijuana smoke to monkeys - literally suffocating them - and then using the inevitable brain damage that resulted as "proof" of marijuana's toxicity. Could anyone imagine a more biased "scientific" experiment? Details here: http://www.sumeria.net/politics/noclo.html; and for some still needed for many marijuana de-mythologizing go to http://paranoia.lycaeum.org/marijuana/facts/mj-health-mythology.html) Recent studies at the University of Saskatchewan seem to indicate that substances found in marijuana actually promote brain cell growth.
Most "drugs of abuse" such as alcohol, heroin, cocaine and nicotine suppress growth of new brain cells. However, researchers found that cannabinoids promoted generation of new neurons in rats' hippocampuses.
Hippocampuses are the part of the brain responsible for learning and memory, and the study held true for either plant-derived or the synthetic version of cannabinoids.
"This is quite a surprise," said Xia Zhang, an associate professor with the Neuropsychiatry Research Unit at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon.
"Chronic use of marijuana may actually improve learning memory when the new neurons in the hippocampus can mature in two or three months," he added.
The research by Dr. Zhang and a team of international researchers is to be published in the November issue of the Journal of Clinical Investigation, but their findings are on-line now.
The scientists also noticed that cannabinoids curbed depression and anxiety, which Dr. Zhang says, suggests a correlation between neurogenesis and mood swings. (Or, it at least partly explains the feelings of relaxation and euphoria of a pot-induced high.)
The rest of the article can be found here:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051014.wxcanna1014/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/
And for a reminder of the insanity that is continued prohibition laws against marijuana (via http://www.andrewsullivan.com) go to http://www.mpp.org/releases/nr20051017.html.
Monday, October 17, 2005
Thursday, October 13, 2005
About The Dead
You may or may not know of my love for the music of the Grateful Dead. Though I never had the opportunity to see them live being from western Canada where they hadn't played since the early 70's and only 18 when Jerry died in August of 1995 when I was just getting into their music I truly feel that they were one of the greatest musical groups ever. (I did see one show of the simply re-named The Dead's 2003 summer tour and three of their 2004 tour and though there was no Jerry, they were great shows played by a phenomenal group of musicians that I thoroughly enjoyed.) I actually even managed to tie them into my undergraduate honours thesis, which was entitled "A Critique of Adorno's Theory of Popular Music: On Improvisation, the Realization of Difference and the Grateful Dead" in which tried to work out of the possibility of a truly progressive "popular" music practice using the model of the Dead's live music ethos.
I'm working on an article that I'm going to try to get published in Bass Player or Musician discussing the bass playing of Phil Lesh, which is to me one of the fundamental innovations of the Dead's music and once it's done I'll post it here or link to it, but in the meantime I found this discussion of their uniqueness to be a worthwhile read so I thought I'd pass it along.
http://www.crecon.com/davidwomack/dead.html
Key quote:
...the Grateful Dead were perhaps the most artistically sublime of units, with band interaction that must be equated with genius given their unflagging devotion, prodigious output and unparalleled resourcefulness. The trick was in absorbing influences from absolutely every direction imaginable, from the "simple" forms of country, bluegrass, rural blues, pop and soul, to the esoteric realms of avant garde, classical, jazz, and cultural music from around the globe. Channellers with gates wide open, spirit, music and life flowed forth. Beatific and reverent, unplanned and contrived, sloppy and perfect, erratic (day to day) and consistent (ultimately), clumsiness only enhanced their high wire act. Analytical rigor mortis was held at bay by refusing to chart destinations; simplistic redundancy was eluded by big, complex, ideas. Communication was clear, if elliptical. The Grateful Dead were a stunning mixture of the hearts of simple music lovers with the minds of self-conscious, ambitious aesthetes.
In the words of Bill Graham, they weren't the best at what they did, they were the only ones who did what they did.
I'm working on an article that I'm going to try to get published in Bass Player or Musician discussing the bass playing of Phil Lesh, which is to me one of the fundamental innovations of the Dead's music and once it's done I'll post it here or link to it, but in the meantime I found this discussion of their uniqueness to be a worthwhile read so I thought I'd pass it along.
http://www.crecon.com/davidwomack/dead.html
Key quote:
...the Grateful Dead were perhaps the most artistically sublime of units, with band interaction that must be equated with genius given their unflagging devotion, prodigious output and unparalleled resourcefulness. The trick was in absorbing influences from absolutely every direction imaginable, from the "simple" forms of country, bluegrass, rural blues, pop and soul, to the esoteric realms of avant garde, classical, jazz, and cultural music from around the globe. Channellers with gates wide open, spirit, music and life flowed forth. Beatific and reverent, unplanned and contrived, sloppy and perfect, erratic (day to day) and consistent (ultimately), clumsiness only enhanced their high wire act. Analytical rigor mortis was held at bay by refusing to chart destinations; simplistic redundancy was eluded by big, complex, ideas. Communication was clear, if elliptical. The Grateful Dead were a stunning mixture of the hearts of simple music lovers with the minds of self-conscious, ambitious aesthetes.
In the words of Bill Graham, they weren't the best at what they did, they were the only ones who did what they did.
Post Double 10 Day ruminations
I haven't posted in a while due to...well a number of things. It was Double-10 days on Monday here (10/10), which is Taiwan's National Holiday and celebrates the founding of the original Chinese Republic in 1912 by Sun Yat-sen after the overthrow of the Qing Dynasty, and so for the long weekend (a rare occurence here in Taiwan where many people still work six days a week) some friends and I went to check out some hot springs that my roommate Caitlin had been to a few weeks before. Since then I haven't felt too inspired, but thankfully that's at least somewhat changed.
Googling "Double ten day Taiwan" I came across this article written marking the holiday, "Taiwan: Double Tenth: A Time for Rededication to Freedom" with no stated author on the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization website at http://www.unpo.org/ news_detail.php?arg=50&par=3055. It points out how dramatically Taiwan has changed for the better over the last 20 years from a forty year long military dictatorship by first Chiang Kai-Shek and then his son Chiang Ching-kuo that lasted until 1987 to a multi-party democracy that is among the most free in Asia, if not the world. This contrasts sharply, of course, with mainland China that has been under the despotic, authoritarian rule of the Communist Party of China for the last 56 years. For those of you who have read my article (posted below) discussing this in relation to U.S. foreign policy this is fairly familiar, but it is well worth reading. Here's an excerpt.
According to Freedom House’s Freedom in the World 2005 survey, Taiwan is one of the few countries in Asia that qualifies as ``free.’’ It shares that with two other nations, Japan and South Korea. Taiwan ranked Asia's most free with overall rating of 1.5 on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 represents the freest.The same survey rates China ``not free,’’ at 6.5, only a half point away from sharing the world's worst rating with Sudan, North Korea and Myanmar.Here lies the greatest external threat to Taiwan's free and democratic way of life.The tyrants who ruthlessly oppress the Chinese and Tibetan people declare the Taiwanese their chattel and rant that they will stop at nothing to crush Taiwan's sovereignty.In March, the rubber-stamp Chinese parliament unanimously approved a so-called ``anti-secession law,’’ which claims that the Chinese Civil War is still on and will end only when the Taiwanese people, who, except for those forcefully conscripted, took no part in that war, are united with a society that does not share their appreciation of human rights, freedom and democracy.In their hypernationalistic rhetoric, Beijing officials have claimed that Taiwan poses the gravest danger to China's national security. The world can see through such hysterical raving.
Well I would hope so, but it's still the case that most countries in the world, my country of Canada included, would rather not stand up to defend Taiwan against its expansionist neighbour preferring to accept China's line about it being but a "renegade" province that must eventually be ruled again by the mainland in order to keep good relations with the butchers of Beijing. Sadly, with the general incompetence that has plagued U.S. actions in Iraq since the war began (primarily due to Rumsfeld's desire to "do it on the cheap" with 175,000 troops as opposed to the 300,000 plus that many generals were advocating) and the continuing morass that is at least partly the result of said incompetence in plain view for all to see, America's, being the country that has kept Taiwan free for 50 years, resolve to defend Taiwan were China to invade lacks the credibility it once had. China would still have to be insanely self-destructive to take such an action, but then who thought the "progressive" Deng Xiao-ping would countenance the slaughter of hundreds, possibly thousands of protestors in Tianenmen Square on June 4, 1989? (If you need a refresher on what exactly happened that very sad day, check out http://www.christusrex.org/www1/sdc/tiananmen.html for an overview that also has some incredible pictures posted. For a very interesting read about the U.S.' view of the situation, see http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB16/; a declassified history from the U.S. National Security Archives) An event that should certainly not be forgotten.
Googling "Double ten day Taiwan" I came across this article written marking the holiday, "Taiwan: Double Tenth: A Time for Rededication to Freedom" with no stated author on the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization website at http://www.unpo.org/ news_detail.php?arg=50&par=3055. It points out how dramatically Taiwan has changed for the better over the last 20 years from a forty year long military dictatorship by first Chiang Kai-Shek and then his son Chiang Ching-kuo that lasted until 1987 to a multi-party democracy that is among the most free in Asia, if not the world. This contrasts sharply, of course, with mainland China that has been under the despotic, authoritarian rule of the Communist Party of China for the last 56 years. For those of you who have read my article (posted below) discussing this in relation to U.S. foreign policy this is fairly familiar, but it is well worth reading. Here's an excerpt.
According to Freedom House’s Freedom in the World 2005 survey, Taiwan is one of the few countries in Asia that qualifies as ``free.’’ It shares that with two other nations, Japan and South Korea. Taiwan ranked Asia's most free with overall rating of 1.5 on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 represents the freest.The same survey rates China ``not free,’’ at 6.5, only a half point away from sharing the world's worst rating with Sudan, North Korea and Myanmar.Here lies the greatest external threat to Taiwan's free and democratic way of life.The tyrants who ruthlessly oppress the Chinese and Tibetan people declare the Taiwanese their chattel and rant that they will stop at nothing to crush Taiwan's sovereignty.In March, the rubber-stamp Chinese parliament unanimously approved a so-called ``anti-secession law,’’ which claims that the Chinese Civil War is still on and will end only when the Taiwanese people, who, except for those forcefully conscripted, took no part in that war, are united with a society that does not share their appreciation of human rights, freedom and democracy.In their hypernationalistic rhetoric, Beijing officials have claimed that Taiwan poses the gravest danger to China's national security. The world can see through such hysterical raving.
Well I would hope so, but it's still the case that most countries in the world, my country of Canada included, would rather not stand up to defend Taiwan against its expansionist neighbour preferring to accept China's line about it being but a "renegade" province that must eventually be ruled again by the mainland in order to keep good relations with the butchers of Beijing. Sadly, with the general incompetence that has plagued U.S. actions in Iraq since the war began (primarily due to Rumsfeld's desire to "do it on the cheap" with 175,000 troops as opposed to the 300,000 plus that many generals were advocating) and the continuing morass that is at least partly the result of said incompetence in plain view for all to see, America's, being the country that has kept Taiwan free for 50 years, resolve to defend Taiwan were China to invade lacks the credibility it once had. China would still have to be insanely self-destructive to take such an action, but then who thought the "progressive" Deng Xiao-ping would countenance the slaughter of hundreds, possibly thousands of protestors in Tianenmen Square on June 4, 1989? (If you need a refresher on what exactly happened that very sad day, check out http://www.christusrex.org/www1/sdc/tiananmen.html for an overview that also has some incredible pictures posted. For a very interesting read about the U.S.' view of the situation, see http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB16/; a declassified history from the U.S. National Security Archives) An event that should certainly not be forgotten.
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
A new look from the Left?
On Open Democracy (at http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflict) Sasha Abramsky has an interesting article entitled: "Whose al-Qaeda problem?" which takes to task those on the Left (Tariq Ali, Robert Fisk, George Galloway, Naomi Klein, and John Pilger specifically) who have ever since the attacks of 9/11/2001, and again since the bombings in London of this year, done their rhetorical best to argue that it is the fault of the United-States and Britain that these events happened at all. Whether because of their (primarily the U.S.') support of Israel, or because of the sanctions on, and then later invasion of, Iraq, al-Qaeda is, these people insist, with some justification punishing these countries for their imperialist ways. The errors of this line of argumentation should be obvious to anyone: al-Qaeda's motivations stem from far deeper roots than American support for Israel or for any actions taken in recent years in Iraq. To understand Islamist fascism, of which al-Qaeda is one notable example, one must go back at least as far back as the collapse of the Ottoman Empire after World War I and the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in the decades that followed. What was involved here (and still is today) was a reaction against the Enlightenment derived ideals of secularism, individual rights and the emancipation of women (among other things). These ideals, traditionaly celebrated and fought for by the Left, have instead been ignored in favour of finding common cause with reactionary religious fanatics who want to re-conquer Andalusia (Moorish Spain that came to an end in 1492), have targeted Australia (the Bali bombings of 2002 and again within the last week) for daring to help predominantly Christian East Timor become independent of Muslim dominatated Indonesia and have attacked any groups - the United-Nations, the Red Cross, Shi'as (who are seen as unredeemable heretics by Sunni fanatics like bin-Laden and Al-Zarqawi), Kurdish rights groups - who dare oppose their authoritarian ambitions.
Critiquing this "blame the West" mentality, Abramsky writes:
They assume that groups like al-Qaida are almost entirely reactive, responding to western policies and actions, rather than being pro-active creatures with a virulent homegrown agenda, one not just of defence but of conquest, destruction of rivals, and, ultimately and at its most megalomaniacal, absolute subjugation.
It misses the central point: that, unlike traditional “third-world” liberation movements looking for a bit of peace and quiet in which to nurture embryonic states, al-Qaida is classically imperialist, looking to subvert established social orders and to replace the cultural and institutional infrastructure of its enemies with a (divinely inspired) hierarchical autocracy of its own, looking to craft the next chapter of human history in its own image.
Simply blaming the never quite defined, yet implicitly all-powerful “west” for the ills of the world doesn’t explain why al-Qaida slaughtered thousands of Americans eighteen months before Saddam was overthrown. Nor does it explain the psychopathic joy this death cult takes in mass killings and in ritualistic, snuff-movie-style beheadings. The term “collateral damage” may be inept, but it at least suggests that the killing of civilians in pursuit of a state’s war aims is unintentional, regrettable; there is nothing unintentional, there is no regret, in the targeting of civilians by al-Qaida’s bombers.
Moreover, many of those who reflexively blame the west do not honestly hold up a mirror to the rest of the world, including the Muslim world, and the racism and sexism and anti-semitism that is rife in many parts of it. If bigotry were indeed the exclusive preserve of the west, their arguments would have greater moral force. But given the fundamentalist prejudices that are so much a part of bin Ladenism, the cry of western racism is a long way from being a case-closer.
We should attend to the way bin Laden and his followers invoke “the west.” They do so alternately to describe any expansive and domineering “first world” economic and political system and, even more ominously, to demarcate a set of ostensibly decadent liberal political, cultural, social, and religious beliefs and practices.
Indeed, what al-Qaida apparently hates most about “the west” are its best points: the pluralism, the rationalism, individual liberty, the emancipation of women, the openness and social dynamism that represent the strongest legacy of the Enlightenment. These values stand in counterpoint to the tyrannical social code idealised by al-Qaida and by related political groupings such as Afghanistan’s Taliban.
In that sense, “the west” denotes less a geographical space than a mindset: a cultural presence or a sphere of anti-absolutist ideas that the Viennese-born philosopher Karl Popper termed the “open society.” In his day, when fascists and Stalinists held vast parts of the globe, the concept of “the west” prevailed over a smaller territory than today. But with the rise of bin Ladenism, the prevalence of this concept again is shrinking.
It is because bin Ladenism is waging war against the liberal ideal that much of the activist left’s response to 11 September 2001 and the London attacks is woefully, catastrophically inadequate. For we, as progressives, need to uphold the values of pluralism, rationalism, scepticism, women’s rights, and individual liberty and oppose ideologies and movements whose foundations rest on theocracy, obscurantism, misogyny, anti-Semitism, and nostalgia for a lost empire.
His comments against Christopher Hitchens are, I think, undeserved since Hitchens, contrary to the polemic of many on the Left, has been nothing if not consistent in his anti-fascist viewpoint (check out http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2005/09/26/ to see an example of his contrarianess), but then bashing Hitchens ("traitors" to a cause are always the most hated afterall) seems to be almost a requirement for many to be taken seriously on the Left. The article is a good one though. Let's hope others on the Left start to see past their dislike of Bush to the real danger we who believe in secularism, individual rights and democratic freedoms face.
Critiquing this "blame the West" mentality, Abramsky writes:
They assume that groups like al-Qaida are almost entirely reactive, responding to western policies and actions, rather than being pro-active creatures with a virulent homegrown agenda, one not just of defence but of conquest, destruction of rivals, and, ultimately and at its most megalomaniacal, absolute subjugation.
It misses the central point: that, unlike traditional “third-world” liberation movements looking for a bit of peace and quiet in which to nurture embryonic states, al-Qaida is classically imperialist, looking to subvert established social orders and to replace the cultural and institutional infrastructure of its enemies with a (divinely inspired) hierarchical autocracy of its own, looking to craft the next chapter of human history in its own image.
Simply blaming the never quite defined, yet implicitly all-powerful “west” for the ills of the world doesn’t explain why al-Qaida slaughtered thousands of Americans eighteen months before Saddam was overthrown. Nor does it explain the psychopathic joy this death cult takes in mass killings and in ritualistic, snuff-movie-style beheadings. The term “collateral damage” may be inept, but it at least suggests that the killing of civilians in pursuit of a state’s war aims is unintentional, regrettable; there is nothing unintentional, there is no regret, in the targeting of civilians by al-Qaida’s bombers.
Moreover, many of those who reflexively blame the west do not honestly hold up a mirror to the rest of the world, including the Muslim world, and the racism and sexism and anti-semitism that is rife in many parts of it. If bigotry were indeed the exclusive preserve of the west, their arguments would have greater moral force. But given the fundamentalist prejudices that are so much a part of bin Ladenism, the cry of western racism is a long way from being a case-closer.
We should attend to the way bin Laden and his followers invoke “the west.” They do so alternately to describe any expansive and domineering “first world” economic and political system and, even more ominously, to demarcate a set of ostensibly decadent liberal political, cultural, social, and religious beliefs and practices.
Indeed, what al-Qaida apparently hates most about “the west” are its best points: the pluralism, the rationalism, individual liberty, the emancipation of women, the openness and social dynamism that represent the strongest legacy of the Enlightenment. These values stand in counterpoint to the tyrannical social code idealised by al-Qaida and by related political groupings such as Afghanistan’s Taliban.
In that sense, “the west” denotes less a geographical space than a mindset: a cultural presence or a sphere of anti-absolutist ideas that the Viennese-born philosopher Karl Popper termed the “open society.” In his day, when fascists and Stalinists held vast parts of the globe, the concept of “the west” prevailed over a smaller territory than today. But with the rise of bin Ladenism, the prevalence of this concept again is shrinking.
It is because bin Ladenism is waging war against the liberal ideal that much of the activist left’s response to 11 September 2001 and the London attacks is woefully, catastrophically inadequate. For we, as progressives, need to uphold the values of pluralism, rationalism, scepticism, women’s rights, and individual liberty and oppose ideologies and movements whose foundations rest on theocracy, obscurantism, misogyny, anti-Semitism, and nostalgia for a lost empire.
His comments against Christopher Hitchens are, I think, undeserved since Hitchens, contrary to the polemic of many on the Left, has been nothing if not consistent in his anti-fascist viewpoint (check out http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2005/09/26/ to see an example of his contrarianess), but then bashing Hitchens ("traitors" to a cause are always the most hated afterall) seems to be almost a requirement for many to be taken seriously on the Left. The article is a good one though. Let's hope others on the Left start to see past their dislike of Bush to the real danger we who believe in secularism, individual rights and democratic freedoms face.
Sunday, October 02, 2005
Saturday, October 01, 2005
And why not?
The inimitable Dan Savage penned an article for Salon.com about a year ago concerning the then recent coming-out-of-the-closet and resignation of New Jersey Governor James McGreevey. Having somehow missed it when it was first published (odd given that I'm a regular reader of Salon) I finally read it after linking to it from another article about Savage's new book, The Commitment: Love, Sex, Marriage, and My Family, and thought it a particularly well written and argued piece on the absurdity of those so against same-sex marriage. Key quote:
According to the Falwells, Robertsons, and Santorums of the world, I'm supposed to think less about the South African Olympic men's swim team and more about hell (hot!) and eternity (long!). Then I'm supposed to go find a woman I can trick into marrying me. So what if the foundation of my marriage is a lie? So what if I have to struggle against my sexual and emotional needs all my adult life? Do what you gotta do, faggot: If you need to think about other men -- like, say, all those nice boys on the South African Olympic swim team -- in order to perform sexually for your wife and make some babies, Sen. Santorum says go for it. And if the truth about my sexuality were to ever come out -- if I were, say, threatened with a $50 million lawsuit by my same-sex piece on the side -- the poor woman I've lied to will feel humiliated and violated but, shit, no one ever said that marriage was all sweetness and light, right?
If it does nothing else, the McGreevey marriage highlights the chief absurdity of the anti-gay-marriage argument: Gay men can, in point of fact, get married -- provided we marry women, duped or otherwise. The porousness of the sacred institution is remarkable: Gay people are a threat to marriage, but gay people are encouraged to marry -- indeed, we have married, under duress, for centuries, and the religious right would like us to continue to do so today -- as long as our marriages are a sham. As long as we're willing to lie to ourselves, our wives, our communities, our children, and for someone like McGreevey, our constituents. A closeted gay man like McGreevey can even marry twice and have both his marriages regarded as legitimate. Even as an openly gay man, McGreevey can remain married to his wife and smoke all the pole he likes on the side. There ain't no law agin' it, Sen. Santorum. But how does this state of affairs protect marriage from the homos, I wonder? If an openly gay man can get married as long as his marriage makes a mockery of what is the defining characteristic of modern marriage -- romantic love -- or if he marries simply because he despairs of finding a same-sex partner, what harm could possibly be done by opening marriage to the gay men who don't want to make a mockery of marriage or who can find a same-sex partner?
Read the whole thing here: http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2004/08/17/savage_mcgreevey/index.html, though you might have to watch a commercial first.
According to the Falwells, Robertsons, and Santorums of the world, I'm supposed to think less about the South African Olympic men's swim team and more about hell (hot!) and eternity (long!). Then I'm supposed to go find a woman I can trick into marrying me. So what if the foundation of my marriage is a lie? So what if I have to struggle against my sexual and emotional needs all my adult life? Do what you gotta do, faggot: If you need to think about other men -- like, say, all those nice boys on the South African Olympic swim team -- in order to perform sexually for your wife and make some babies, Sen. Santorum says go for it. And if the truth about my sexuality were to ever come out -- if I were, say, threatened with a $50 million lawsuit by my same-sex piece on the side -- the poor woman I've lied to will feel humiliated and violated but, shit, no one ever said that marriage was all sweetness and light, right?
If it does nothing else, the McGreevey marriage highlights the chief absurdity of the anti-gay-marriage argument: Gay men can, in point of fact, get married -- provided we marry women, duped or otherwise. The porousness of the sacred institution is remarkable: Gay people are a threat to marriage, but gay people are encouraged to marry -- indeed, we have married, under duress, for centuries, and the religious right would like us to continue to do so today -- as long as our marriages are a sham. As long as we're willing to lie to ourselves, our wives, our communities, our children, and for someone like McGreevey, our constituents. A closeted gay man like McGreevey can even marry twice and have both his marriages regarded as legitimate. Even as an openly gay man, McGreevey can remain married to his wife and smoke all the pole he likes on the side. There ain't no law agin' it, Sen. Santorum. But how does this state of affairs protect marriage from the homos, I wonder? If an openly gay man can get married as long as his marriage makes a mockery of what is the defining characteristic of modern marriage -- romantic love -- or if he marries simply because he despairs of finding a same-sex partner, what harm could possibly be done by opening marriage to the gay men who don't want to make a mockery of marriage or who can find a same-sex partner?
Read the whole thing here: http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2004/08/17/savage_mcgreevey/index.html, though you might have to watch a commercial first.
Thursday, September 29, 2005
Take a hint George!
I know it's a bit old, but Bill Maher's commentary from a few weeks back is hilarious and is a true must see.
Check it out at: http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/bushvideos/v/maherbushbungle.htm
"Mr. President, this job can't be fun for you any more. There's no more money to spend--you used up all of that. You can't start another war because you used up the army. And now, darn the luck, the rest of your term has become the Bush family nightmare: helping poor people. Listen to your Mom. The cupboard's bare, the credit cards maxed out. No one's speaking to you. Mission accomplished.
I've watched it three times and I still laugh...
Check it out at: http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/bushvideos/v/maherbushbungle.htm
"Mr. President, this job can't be fun for you any more. There's no more money to spend--you used up all of that. You can't start another war because you used up the army. And now, darn the luck, the rest of your term has become the Bush family nightmare: helping poor people. Listen to your Mom. The cupboard's bare, the credit cards maxed out. No one's speaking to you. Mission accomplished.
I've watched it three times and I still laugh...
What's so intelligent about Intelligent Design?
William Saletan has a great article on Slate.com on the fallacies of those proposing "Intelligent Design" (ID) as a scientific alternative to Darwinian evolution; something being now proposed in Pennsylvania as a mandated part of the Biology curriculum.
The complaint that Darwinism can resort to an "infinite number" of processes misses the key word: processes. What makes Darwinism finite and falsifiable is its commitment to explain processes of evolution. Debunk one process, and Darwinists are forced to propose and test another. (For an excellent review of Darwinism's performance under empirical challenge, see Rick Weiss and David Brown's article in Monday's Washington Post.) What makes ID infinite and unfalsifiable is its refusal to explain intelligent design. You send your kids to biology class to learn by what processes living things evolve. ID doesn't even try to answer that question...
So here's what ID proponents are offering to teach your kids: They won't say how ID works. They won't say how it can be tested, apart from testing Darwinism and inferring that the alternative is ID. They won't concede it has to be falsifiable. All they'll say is that Darwinism hasn't explained some things.
(The full article: http://www.slate.com/id/2127052/)
In other words, ID doesn't belong in a science class! It's an anti-theory that cannot be falsifiable and is therefore by definition not scientific. It should be discussed, but in a Philosophy class not Biology. Of course sadly, few high school students are exposed to even the slightest bit of philosophical reflection; a tragic absense in anyone's education and one that, I think, partly explains what's wrong with the present system: no broader, multi-disciplined environment to discuss and learn to think about broad questions of human knowledge. And so ID continues to find itself more than ever where it does not belong.
The complaint that Darwinism can resort to an "infinite number" of processes misses the key word: processes. What makes Darwinism finite and falsifiable is its commitment to explain processes of evolution. Debunk one process, and Darwinists are forced to propose and test another. (For an excellent review of Darwinism's performance under empirical challenge, see Rick Weiss and David Brown's article in Monday's Washington Post.) What makes ID infinite and unfalsifiable is its refusal to explain intelligent design. You send your kids to biology class to learn by what processes living things evolve. ID doesn't even try to answer that question...
So here's what ID proponents are offering to teach your kids: They won't say how ID works. They won't say how it can be tested, apart from testing Darwinism and inferring that the alternative is ID. They won't concede it has to be falsifiable. All they'll say is that Darwinism hasn't explained some things.
(The full article: http://www.slate.com/id/2127052/)
In other words, ID doesn't belong in a science class! It's an anti-theory that cannot be falsifiable and is therefore by definition not scientific. It should be discussed, but in a Philosophy class not Biology. Of course sadly, few high school students are exposed to even the slightest bit of philosophical reflection; a tragic absense in anyone's education and one that, I think, partly explains what's wrong with the present system: no broader, multi-disciplined environment to discuss and learn to think about broad questions of human knowledge. And so ID continues to find itself more than ever where it does not belong.
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Down goes Delay
So uber-powerful House of Representatives leader Tom Delay has been indicted by a grand jury on charges of criminal conspiracy. Delay epitomizes the slimy depths that the Republican Party has sunk to in its 11 year control of the House and it's about time that someone - thank you Texas prosecutor Ronnie Earl - had the guts to stand up to this sleaze bag. He, of course, proclaims his innocence; labelling Earl "an unabashed partisan zealot" engaging in "personal revenge," though Earl has, in his 29 years as prosecutor, gone after far more Democrats (12) than Republicans (4).
Delay was the prime motivator of the Clinton impeachment process, the unconstitutional intervention of the Federal government in the Terri Schiavo affair, the unprededented three hour long vote call (that usually lasts 15 minutes) needed to pass the unaffordable and subsidies-for-big-pharmaceutical-companies ridden Medicaid Senior Drug Benefit and the pre-last election gerrymandering of the Texas House districts that not surprisingly gave the Republicans 6 more seats in that election (among other things). His initial impetus for getting into politics, having used to run an extermination business in Houston, was a fervent desire for government de-regulation; specifically aimed at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for having (horror of horrors!), in the seventies, banned Mirex: a probable carcinogen that becomes increasingly concentrated as it moves up the food chain, is highly toxic to marine crustaceans and was then being discovered in the breast milk of mother's in the Southeastern states where it was used to fight fire ants. Yes, this is the man who has been in effective control of the House since Newt Gingrich's resignation as Speaker in 1998, which explains a great deal what's gone wrong with the legislative branch of the U.S. government of late.
For a great discussion of Delay's career, check out NPR's discussion with Texas journalist Lou Dubose at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4052979
Delay was the prime motivator of the Clinton impeachment process, the unconstitutional intervention of the Federal government in the Terri Schiavo affair, the unprededented three hour long vote call (that usually lasts 15 minutes) needed to pass the unaffordable and subsidies-for-big-pharmaceutical-companies ridden Medicaid Senior Drug Benefit and the pre-last election gerrymandering of the Texas House districts that not surprisingly gave the Republicans 6 more seats in that election (among other things). His initial impetus for getting into politics, having used to run an extermination business in Houston, was a fervent desire for government de-regulation; specifically aimed at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for having (horror of horrors!), in the seventies, banned Mirex: a probable carcinogen that becomes increasingly concentrated as it moves up the food chain, is highly toxic to marine crustaceans and was then being discovered in the breast milk of mother's in the Southeastern states where it was used to fight fire ants. Yes, this is the man who has been in effective control of the House since Newt Gingrich's resignation as Speaker in 1998, which explains a great deal what's gone wrong with the legislative branch of the U.S. government of late.
For a great discussion of Delay's career, check out NPR's discussion with Texas journalist Lou Dubose at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4052979
China, Taiwan and the USA
The United-States (at least its Federal government) is often accused of letting self-interested, primarily economic, considerations determine its foreign policy. So it has been tirelessly argued: the invasion of Iraq was all about oil; the overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan was "really" about a US energy company building a natural gas pipeline through the country; its involvements in Central and South America over the last century due to imperialist dreams; its late entries into both World Wars seen as opportunistic gambits by power-hungry and hypocritical Presidents; even the tens of billions spenty (in todays dollars) to rebuild Europe after World War II have been reduced to the meanest of motives. I would instead argue that all these actions have been the result of an inevitable combination of self-interest and idealistic, liberal desires to change the world for the better. That to therefore reduce these, or any other historical event, to a purely materialist (generally Marxist) analysis is to overly simplify the true complexities of historical reality. One can certainly learn a lot from applying such analyses, but one must be aware at the same time of their limitations.
The USA's relations with Taiwan make particularly evident the sometimes poverty of this historical outlook. Taiwan is, of course, an island claimed by China as an indivisible part of itself, though it has only for a relatively brief time ever been under control of the government on the mainland (from 1683-1895). Since the Kuomintang (KMT) under Chiang Kai-Shek lost the Civil War to Mao Tse-Tung's Communists and fled to the island of Formosa in 1949 setting up the Republic of China (ROC) government there, the USA's foreign policy has changed from at first (from 1949-1972) refusing to recognize the People's Republic of China (PRC) Communist government - maintaining that the ROC rightfully represented China and had the right to its seat at the United-Nations even though it only controlled the now renamed island of Taiwan and a few other small islands off the coast of China - to an acknowledgement of the Communist Party's effective rule over all of mainland China and therefore its right to China's seat at the UN (1972) and for full diplomatic relations with the U.S. (1979). It has remained the foreign policy objective of the USA, however, to help Taiwan maintain its political independence from China despite its accession to China's insistence that Taiwan is but a "renegade" province that will eventually return to Chinese rule. This objective has been actively enforced; beginning with Harry Truman's sending of the 7th Fleet into the Taiwanese Strait in 1950 in order to forestall an expected Chinese invasion to Bill Clinton's deployment of two aircraft carrier groups to the straits in 1996 after China provocatively "test-fired" missiles over Taiwan during that year's Presidential election. The same year that the U.S. switched its diplomatic recognition to the PRC, the Taiwan Relations Act was passed stating, among other things, that the U.S. would consider "any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes, a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States."
Until 1991 and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Cold War and its related geo-political concerns were the most obvious basis by which to understand Sino-U.S. relations. So the refusal of the U.S. to recognize the PRC until 1972 is explained by the former's militant anti-Communism, just as the then shift towards the PRC (in "Nixon going to China") was motivated by a long-overdue recognition of the non-monolithic nature of the Communist world - specifically the serious disagreements that had arisen between the PRC and the Soviet Union (resulting in border clashes in 1969) as well as with then North Vietnam - and therefore the attempt to play the different Communist blocs against each other to the USA's, and other non-communist countries, advantage.
These foreign policy considerations were undoubtedly the primary reason for the "thaw" between the USA and the PRC that began in the 70's, but one must wonder, given the reality of today, if far-sighted economic prognostications did not play some role. For China, with it's population of well over a billion, has become the economic success story of the last 20 years. Trade between the two countries has increased exponentially to the point where China, in order to keep the value of its currency the yuan artificially low against the dollar, has become the main buyer of US currency in order to keep its exports cheap and economy expanding. The details of this are in themselves fascinatingly frightening (perhaps to be addressed in a future article), but what should be understood is how economically important China is to the USA.
Not that Taiwan is not of course. The official web site of the Taiwanese government (at http://www.roc-taiwan.org/usoffice/dc.htm) states that:
The trade in commercial goods between Taiwan and the United States totaled US$56.35 billion in 2004. Of that, U.S. exports to Taiwan accounted for US$21.73 billion, while U.S. imports from Taiwan totaled US$34.62 billion, resulting in a U.S. deficit of US$14.11 billion. Taiwan was the United States' eighth largest trading partner, its ninth largest export market, and its eighth largest source of imports.
Taiwan's investment in the United States totaled US$557 million in 2004, while U.S. investment in Taiwan totaled US$353 million.
And this with a population of only 23 million people.
Compared to trade with China, however, these numbers pale in significance. Economically there is no doubt which "country" (in scare quotes because Taiwan is not even recognized as a country by most countries in the world) is more important to the USA: clearly China; and yet, Taiwan remains a nearly perpetual stumbling block in China-U.S. relations. Here is a April 8, 2002 commentary (available online at http://english.people.com.cn/200204/07/93630.) from the Communist Party controlled People's Daily:
On April 9, the 23rd anniversary of the United States' troublemaking Taiwan Relations Act, the US Congress is due to unveil a 70-member Taiwan caucus. Most congressional caucuses are issue-based or for particular racial groups but this one will be devoted solely to Taiwan, an inalienable part of China. It is claimed that the caucus will serve as an official channel for legislators from both the United States and the island to exchange ideas. Such a provocative move will obviously overshadow the renewed Sino-US relations. On a more dangerous level, it may provide fodder to Taiwan's military forces and play into the hands of Taiwan separatist extremists... This comes at a time when there have been conspicuous signs of ever-increasing US-Taiwan military ties... In most cases, those who sow the wind will reap a whirlwind. The robust military build-up may not bring the so-called balance but menace instead cross-Straits peace and stability. Helping Taiwan build its military muscle will only foment pro-independence forces. Since the latest remarks and events may give these forces the impression that the United States is on their side and ready to provide military protection, they may become provocative enough to push the island to the edge.
In fact, the Taiwan Caucus of the U.S. House ofRepresentatives has since grown to 151 members, while the newer Taiwan Caucus in the Senate has a respectable 24. These are remarkably high numbers of U.S. government lawmakers to be interested and concerned with its fate despite the obvious displeasure it gives to the economically dominant power. Numerous pieces of legislation have been passed, primarily in the House, calling on the U.S. Administration to support Taiwan against the nearly incessant bullying of Beijing and to change the "One China" policy, in place since 1949, to a "One China-One Taiwan" policy thus affirming the latter's right to self-determination as expressed in the UN Charter. What explains this apparent concern for a "country" whose defense is seemingly so contrary to the economic self-interest of the U.S.?
Of course, the U.S. Administration must strike a much more delicate balance with the PRC - recognizing its formidable political, economic and military power - but no liberalistically inclined individual should think that the U.S. should not help protect Taiwan's sovereignty. Though the economic reforms of the last twenty years in China have been vast, political reform has been strangled since the Tianenmen Square Massacre of June 4, 1989 (in which the Chinese government still maintains that no one was killed) and internal dissent continues to be brutally supressed to this day. Taiwan, on the other hand, has, since the lifting of Martial Law in 1987, become a remarkably free and democratic country with multi-party, competitive elections; a vibrant, free press; and (in great contrast to the persecution of Falun Gong/Dafa and the near-genocidal policies directed at the religion and culture of Tibet by the Chinese Government) freedom of religious belief.
The USA's relations with Taiwan make particularly evident the sometimes poverty of this historical outlook. Taiwan is, of course, an island claimed by China as an indivisible part of itself, though it has only for a relatively brief time ever been under control of the government on the mainland (from 1683-1895). Since the Kuomintang (KMT) under Chiang Kai-Shek lost the Civil War to Mao Tse-Tung's Communists and fled to the island of Formosa in 1949 setting up the Republic of China (ROC) government there, the USA's foreign policy has changed from at first (from 1949-1972) refusing to recognize the People's Republic of China (PRC) Communist government - maintaining that the ROC rightfully represented China and had the right to its seat at the United-Nations even though it only controlled the now renamed island of Taiwan and a few other small islands off the coast of China - to an acknowledgement of the Communist Party's effective rule over all of mainland China and therefore its right to China's seat at the UN (1972) and for full diplomatic relations with the U.S. (1979). It has remained the foreign policy objective of the USA, however, to help Taiwan maintain its political independence from China despite its accession to China's insistence that Taiwan is but a "renegade" province that will eventually return to Chinese rule. This objective has been actively enforced; beginning with Harry Truman's sending of the 7th Fleet into the Taiwanese Strait in 1950 in order to forestall an expected Chinese invasion to Bill Clinton's deployment of two aircraft carrier groups to the straits in 1996 after China provocatively "test-fired" missiles over Taiwan during that year's Presidential election. The same year that the U.S. switched its diplomatic recognition to the PRC, the Taiwan Relations Act was passed stating, among other things, that the U.S. would consider "any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes, a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States."
Until 1991 and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Cold War and its related geo-political concerns were the most obvious basis by which to understand Sino-U.S. relations. So the refusal of the U.S. to recognize the PRC until 1972 is explained by the former's militant anti-Communism, just as the then shift towards the PRC (in "Nixon going to China") was motivated by a long-overdue recognition of the non-monolithic nature of the Communist world - specifically the serious disagreements that had arisen between the PRC and the Soviet Union (resulting in border clashes in 1969) as well as with then North Vietnam - and therefore the attempt to play the different Communist blocs against each other to the USA's, and other non-communist countries, advantage.
These foreign policy considerations were undoubtedly the primary reason for the "thaw" between the USA and the PRC that began in the 70's, but one must wonder, given the reality of today, if far-sighted economic prognostications did not play some role. For China, with it's population of well over a billion, has become the economic success story of the last 20 years. Trade between the two countries has increased exponentially to the point where China, in order to keep the value of its currency the yuan artificially low against the dollar, has become the main buyer of US currency in order to keep its exports cheap and economy expanding. The details of this are in themselves fascinatingly frightening (perhaps to be addressed in a future article), but what should be understood is how economically important China is to the USA.
Not that Taiwan is not of course. The official web site of the Taiwanese government (at http://www.roc-taiwan.org/usoffice/dc.htm) states that:
The trade in commercial goods between Taiwan and the United States totaled US$56.35 billion in 2004. Of that, U.S. exports to Taiwan accounted for US$21.73 billion, while U.S. imports from Taiwan totaled US$34.62 billion, resulting in a U.S. deficit of US$14.11 billion. Taiwan was the United States' eighth largest trading partner, its ninth largest export market, and its eighth largest source of imports.
Taiwan's investment in the United States totaled US$557 million in 2004, while U.S. investment in Taiwan totaled US$353 million.
And this with a population of only 23 million people.
Compared to trade with China, however, these numbers pale in significance. Economically there is no doubt which "country" (in scare quotes because Taiwan is not even recognized as a country by most countries in the world) is more important to the USA: clearly China; and yet, Taiwan remains a nearly perpetual stumbling block in China-U.S. relations. Here is a April 8, 2002 commentary (available online at http://english.people.com.cn/200204/07/93630.) from the Communist Party controlled People's Daily:
On April 9, the 23rd anniversary of the United States' troublemaking Taiwan Relations Act, the US Congress is due to unveil a 70-member Taiwan caucus. Most congressional caucuses are issue-based or for particular racial groups but this one will be devoted solely to Taiwan, an inalienable part of China. It is claimed that the caucus will serve as an official channel for legislators from both the United States and the island to exchange ideas. Such a provocative move will obviously overshadow the renewed Sino-US relations. On a more dangerous level, it may provide fodder to Taiwan's military forces and play into the hands of Taiwan separatist extremists... This comes at a time when there have been conspicuous signs of ever-increasing US-Taiwan military ties... In most cases, those who sow the wind will reap a whirlwind. The robust military build-up may not bring the so-called balance but menace instead cross-Straits peace and stability. Helping Taiwan build its military muscle will only foment pro-independence forces. Since the latest remarks and events may give these forces the impression that the United States is on their side and ready to provide military protection, they may become provocative enough to push the island to the edge.
In fact, the Taiwan Caucus of the U.S. House ofRepresentatives has since grown to 151 members, while the newer Taiwan Caucus in the Senate has a respectable 24. These are remarkably high numbers of U.S. government lawmakers to be interested and concerned with its fate despite the obvious displeasure it gives to the economically dominant power. Numerous pieces of legislation have been passed, primarily in the House, calling on the U.S. Administration to support Taiwan against the nearly incessant bullying of Beijing and to change the "One China" policy, in place since 1949, to a "One China-One Taiwan" policy thus affirming the latter's right to self-determination as expressed in the UN Charter. What explains this apparent concern for a "country" whose defense is seemingly so contrary to the economic self-interest of the U.S.?
Of course, the U.S. Administration must strike a much more delicate balance with the PRC - recognizing its formidable political, economic and military power - but no liberalistically inclined individual should think that the U.S. should not help protect Taiwan's sovereignty. Though the economic reforms of the last twenty years in China have been vast, political reform has been strangled since the Tianenmen Square Massacre of June 4, 1989 (in which the Chinese government still maintains that no one was killed) and internal dissent continues to be brutally supressed to this day. Taiwan, on the other hand, has, since the lifting of Martial Law in 1987, become a remarkably free and democratic country with multi-party, competitive elections; a vibrant, free press; and (in great contrast to the persecution of Falun Gong/Dafa and the near-genocidal policies directed at the religion and culture of Tibet by the Chinese Government) freedom of religious belief.
Consistent with its neo-imperial ambitions, however, China, in March of this year, passed an Anti-Seccession Law that states:
In the event that the 'Taiwan independence' secessionist forces should act under any name or by any means to cause the fact of Taiwan's secession from China, or that major incidents entailing Taiwan's secession from China should occur, or that possibilities for a peaceful reunification should be completely exhausted, the state shall employ non-peaceful means and other necessary measures to protect China's sovereignty and territorial integrity.
That this completely contradicts the UN Charter and its (Article 1, section 2) affirmation of the right of the "self-determination of peoples" seems to not worry the PRC who insist instead that the issue of Taiwan is a domestic one; that Article 2, section 7 explicitly states that, "Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter" and that therefore the right to self-determination does not in this case apply. The falseness of this argument is made evident by the obvious inapplicability of Taiwan being now "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of China. The PRC has, instead, in its history never controlled Taiwan; an obvious requirement for any territory to be accurately referred to as the "domestic jurisdiction" of a state. Though Taiwan is not even a member of the United-Nations (it applies for membership each year only to be rejected by China and its allies), it clearly has the right, based on its effective control of its territory for over 50 years, to determine its own fate. That it is a free and democratic country, as opposed to the authoritarian part-communist, part-fascist dictatorship of the PRC is yet another reason that it should be defended from the increasingly desperate seeming nationalism of the mainland.
If China were to actually invade Taiwan, however, the actions of the U.S. would undoubtedly be the most crucial determining factor in what the final result would be. Though comments have been made in China threatening to use nuclear weapons if the U.S. were to involve itself in a war across the Taiwan Straits, it seems unlikely that China would take such a step knowing the massive repercussions that would surely result. A much more likely scenario is a massive conventional surprise attack aiming to knock out Taiwan's defences and a near-simultaneous amphibious invasion designed to affect a fait d'accompli before anyone (meaning the U.S.) could involve itself.
Whether most Americans would actually want their country to get involved in a war with China to defend Taiwan is doubtful given the almost certain loss of life in the tens of thousands (at least) that would inevitably result, but that does not alter the rightness of such an undertaking. China would clearly be the agressor and in the spirit, if not the letter, of the post-World War II consensus that brought about the creation of the United-Nations Taiwan would deserve help to defend itself as did South Korea when North Korea invaded and nearly conquered the entire country in 1950 only to be saved from the last 53 years of totalitarian dictatorship, famine and slave-camps of Kim-il Sung Il and Kim-Jung Il by the actions of then U.S. President Harry Truman (a fact that many on the Left seem to forget in their Chomskian/Zinn-like crusades to paint the entirety of American's history of foreign policy actions in the worst possible light).
That the U.S. government (at least part of it) shows such concern for Taiwan to the point of being willing to go to war with China to defend it despite the obvious reluctance of the American people to fight and the far greater importance of China to the health of the U.S. economy is curious to say the least. How to explain something so seemingly contrary to U.S. self-interest?
One might argue that it expresses America's hegemonic impulses; that though the economies of the U.S. and China are increasingly dependent on each other, the U.S. sees China as its main emerging rival to its now singular Superpower status and that its support for Taiwan is merely a way of "containing" China's growing international ambitions. This is undoubtedly partly true as there has certainly been an increase in tensions due to China's increasing power, yet the price that could potentially be payed by the U.S. for its support of Taiwan is so much greater than whatever benefits such a containment might bring about that this explanation is far from adequate.
China is in many ways the perfect embodiment of the kind of country many on the Left have criticized the U.S. for supporting over the last 50 or so years: one with a capitalist economy of sorts (though the State still largely controls the economy through the many companies it continues to own; primarily in the banking system) that is very much addicted to American consumer culture, yet combined with a repressive, authoritarian political system. Taiwan is also very much addicted to American consumer culture, but it, on the other hand, is a free and democratic country that should at last be recognized as one, and be defended militarily if need be, despite the threats from the dictators of Beijing. Thankfully American resolve has so far been sufficient to dissuade China from imposing its tyranny on yet another part of the world, but as of yet few other countries have shown any support for Taiwan; primarily because of their having been cowed by China. That it is a group of U.S. Representatives and Senators in their respective Taiwan Caucuses (do such things exist in any other country in the world?), however, who do more to defend Taiwan than anyone else in the world is a testament not to America's imperialist ambitions, but rather, I would offer as the best explanation, to a sincere concern of many in the U.S. government with the rights and freedoms of the Taiwanese people. And so they, and all other liberally inclined people, should be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)