nerdgirl

He was confirmed in March. Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Thanks for the reply. Was hoping you’d chime in.

Head of OSTP, which was established in 1976 under Pres Ford by PL 94-282 (so neither new, a "Czar," nor unaccountable) requires Senate Confirmation. The position is as accountable as any Cabinet Secretary although with a lot less real power, e.g., very small budget. OSTP has a skewed high prestige to power ratio. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Hm. Interesting idea, there, John. I say we start by striking Newton's laws, and work our way from there. Tomorrow I'm calling my congressman about repealing the Pythagorean Theorem. Every couple months I have someone come to me earnestly asserting that we need to regulate nanotechnology. (Who is "we" varies, from US EPA to new international arms control treaty.) A good portion of the time, the basis for their arguments are grey goo, self-assembling nanobots, or molecular manufacturing, a la Michael Crichton's fiction novel Prey. Depending on how patient or tired I'm feeling, some days I respond that we already have the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as well as Reynolds Number limitations (effect on inertia on viscous flow in a fluid, like air) that effectively do create limitations. We don't need to legislate the laws of thermodynamics ... even if some might oppose on ideological grounds. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Perhaps in some cases but not necessarily. Seems to me – & this may reflect my perspective – one of the problems arises with new technology. Law is rarely prospective. (And I don't think it should be in most cases.) E.g., do libel or slander laws apply to the internet? Can genes be patented? Shoul human cloning be legal? Does using IR constitute reasonable search or not? Is it legal to use MRI to search for "terrorist intentions" of people boarding planes? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

CFR’s got an accessible and well-written backgrounder on Uighurs and China’s Xinjiang Region. The CFR article seems to suggest a larger potential impact on the economy than I would assert. Other background notes on China’s actions in the early 2000s against the Uyghur domestic insurgency (or Uighur, depends on which transliteration one prefers), which China considers terrorism. One of the notable pieces of this latest series of incidents, imo, has been that it hasn't been in the most traditionally strong areas of Uyghur unrest/independence movements. Still in the far northwest of the country, yes, but not in the cities that have been the ‘usual suspects’ for violence/unrest/terrorism/insurgent activity. It might be something like an anti-war protest in conservative Newport Beach, Orange County rather than in front of the Wilshire Blvd Federal Building in Los Angeles or in Santa Monica. Geographically close but populations with substantive differences. A couple folks have speculated on likelihood of sparking additional protests throughout China. I don’t think so but Chinese domestic politics is not my area of expertise. I am curious as to what/if any limitations have been increased those cities. What do you think should be the US position w/r/t Uyghurs? Should we have one? None of our business? Support China’s battle against their homegrown Islamic terrorism? Support those who want freedom of religion in the far west of the country? Or something else? Or just don’t care? Numbers injured/killed seem to vary. Chinese sources suggest >1600 injured, mostly Han Chinese. Fatalities close to 200. Video from BBC showing violence in Urumqi, China. The Chinese leadership seems to be asserting the Uyghur movement and the latest violence as a threat to its sovereignty. Wall Street Journal Op-Ed by Uyghur separatist leader, Ms. Rebiya Kadeer, who resides in the US, “The Real Story of the Uighur Riots: Heavy-handed police tactics by the Chinese turned a peaceful assembly into a bloodbath,” who not unsurprisingly encourages the US to support the Uyghurs. Response Op-Ed from spokesman for China’s US Embassy, also published in [i[WSJ: “We Are Protecting All Our Citizens, Uighur and Han” /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I'm genuinely curious -- what about foreign aid to Israel, the historical single largest recipient of US foreign aid? Are you opposed to that as well? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

There’s a conundrum in there. Do you want people who know what they’re talking about involved/heard/listened to in policy decisions or should everyone’s opinion and voice be weighted equally? (Of course, for the anarchists and really hard-core libertarians, there should be no policy decisions, so it’s a dismissible proposition.) Do you want medical decisions made by “medical-elite” (aka physicians) or by the public? That’s one of the criticisms of single-payer. Do you want skydiving decisions made by the “skydiving-elite” (who-ever they are exactly … never put myself in that category) or by the public? Do you want operational military decision made by the “military-elite” (General Officers) or by the public? There’s a popular term these days: the "strategic sergeant ." The flip side of that is one risks getting the “tactical General,” which modern information and communications technology can make true. (Now that’s a candidate for a micro-management nightmare, eh?) Do you want firefighting done by “firefighting-elite” (firefighters) or the couch potato couple who spends more time fighting over the remote? Do you want your HVAC repairs done by the “HVAC-elite” (folks who know what they’re doing) or someone else? (One can substitute any number of skill sets that can't be easily exported.) Specialization has been pretty good for human civilization. And thank any multiple number of deities that someone wants to be a kindergarten teacher, cause I recognize my high probability for failing if I had to do that. Do you want legal decisions made by the “legal elite” (juris doctors) or do you want to explain tort law to the public? Oh, hold on … we do *that* … what’s special about that? (A lawyer friend of mine in LA once recommended that if I was innocent, ask for a judge [if I had a choice], and if I was guilty, ask for a jury.) For me, it comes down to a belief that democracy – or representative republic – functions better when the electorate is more informed. And the electorate is not dumb ... they may occasionally say dumb things & do dumb things - some more often than others, but people are not inherently stupid. I'm not sure whether I see more dangers in the scenarios from Pres Eisenhower's speech or in anti-intellectualism, i.e., the dystopian vision of Mike Judge's Idiocracy. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

That caught my attention. Would you write more on that parallel you see? What do you see as the source of the 'guilt' -- being born into and using modern technology? Do you see it as a manifestation of anti-technology thinking/backlash or something else? Morality versus economics? Manufactured morality? Thanks. It sounds, to me, like an interesting lens to view the connections between science/technology and policy through? Would like to read more of your thoughts on it. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Markets. You forgot creating new markets to sell stuff. In his inaugural speech and the speech in which the foundation of NATO was announced, President Harry S Truman spoke about the foreign aid in very idealistic rhetoric: “… In addition, we will provide military advice and equipment to free nations which will cooperate with us in the maintenance of peace and security. “Fourth, we must embark on a bold new program for making the benefits of our scientific advances and industrial progress available for the improvement and growth of underdeveloped areas. “The United States is pre-eminent among nations in the development of industrial and scientific techniques. The material resources which we can afford to use for the assistance of other peoples are limited. But our imponderable resources in technical knowledge are constantly growing and are inexhaustible. “With the cooperation of business, private capital, agriculture, and labor in this country, this program can greatly increase the industrial activity in other nations and can raise substantially their standards of living.” Sounds idealistic, eh? Underlying the idealistic motivations of which President Truman spoke was also a reality of recognition of foreign aid as a means to create new markets. New markets of populations where people could buy things. New markets where people would buy American goods (predominantly in January 1949) and services. Sixty years ago President Truman recognized the connections between foreign aid and American economic growth. The double-edged sword not recognized then was the globalization would eventually elevate other nation-states to the point of being (potential) competitors. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Great pics! Thanks for sharing them. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I’ll second the recommendation of Bisbee. In addition to the B&B's, I found a lot of history there. Tombstone is fun to go to if your folks like Americana kitsch (I do) or just to say you’ve been there. If they’re going to be in that area, I highly recommend Kartchner caverns, which is north of Ft Huachucha. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

My last vehicle I bought in 1995. A brand new Ford Ranger (2WD), hasn’t been taken in for any failures yet.

At the core, yes. Nuclear pessimists don’t necessarily see nuclear weapons as destabilizing to international community. Nuclear pessimists, rather, consider the risks that nuclear weapons bring, specifically the potential for nuclear accidents (including but not limited to human error) and limits of organizational structures of potential proliferant states, to outweigh the rational actor models that drive the nuclear optimists view. Nuclear pessimists find other explanations, such as institutions, strategic culture, economics, in addition to deterrence, for the last 60 years of stability that extend beyond neorealist explanations. Given former Secretary of Defense McNamara’s death last week, in the context of the nuclear optimist/pessimist debate, it’s worth recalling, imo, how close we got – and most, who were alive, didn’t realize at the time – to nuclear war. If you’re interested in the nuclear optimist/pessimist debate, the leading work is Ken Waltz (UC Berkeley emeritus) and Scott Sagan’s (Stanford) The Spread of Nuclear Weapons. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Perhaps validation of what I posted back in January in the thread “Who will the liberals hate once Obama is in power?” /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Thanks for the reply. War is politics by other means, eh? In addition to looking to Vietnam, one can also look back to WWII. With 60 years of hindsight and history, one can look back and is hard-pressed to offer a stronger case for entering into a “war of conscience” both w/r/t the Holocaust in Europe and the actions of the Japanese in China, e.g., 1937 “Rape of Nanking.” Until Pearl Harbor was attacked, there was significant and substantial popular resistance to the US giving up neutrality. In addition, official US law required neutrality, i.e., the “neutrality acts.” As late as March 1941, efforts such as the Lend-Lease Act were hugely controversial. Pres Roosevelt took tremendous risks in advocating for that policy. Concur to some extent. The caveat being not all “wars of choice” are necessarily “wars of conscience.” Wars over resources are another category. One perspective might see them as “wars of necessity,” while the other as “wars on choice.” While we most often hear about the Kashmiri conflict in terms of ethnic or religious tensions and territorial dispute from the break-up of the British Empire, there are also underlying resource issues. The Kashmir area is the watershed for much of India. Water as a resource. There’s a school of thought out there that is playing with the idea that what we in the west have largely come to think of as the character of ‘old wars’ – uniformed military of one state against the uniformed military of another state on a defined battlefield – are gone or were a product of 400 or so years of a international system that predominated in Europe (the Westphalian system). That what is the more common way of doing war, even over the last 400 years, didn’t look like that and won’t again in the future. If that idea is true, that does have the potential to be a strategic blindspot, imo. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Thanks for the more detailed replies. Where we started: How do you assert as “proof” something will not work if it hasn’t been done? (It’s also not a good argument for “proof” that it will work either.) It might be an argument for or against something, but how is it “proof”? A priori assertion of proof would seem to necessitate a very high standard of evidence. What is the evidence? I think of proof of a policy’s effectiveness or lack thereof based on the outcome of policy (& how well it accomplishes or doesn’t the policy goals, e.g., strategic principles). How is an contested, asserted dichotomy “proof” something will not work? I'm still not seeing "proof." Counter-arguments, sure. Maybe "proof" means different things to us. You’re starting to sound like what I’ve been writing. 8. That’s not “proof” of that argument either. (I’m more of a nuclear pessimist myself.) While I agree our agencies have been doing a whole lot ‘right’ since September 2001, merely citing the lack of domestic attack, without acknowledging the previous interim time period is problematic. So that’s not really proof, eh? It’s supposition. One might say hopeful supposition. It’s a supposition which I hope is true. “Monday-morning quarterbacking” or acknowledgement of need for lessons learned and emphasis on homeland security and homeland defense? If a conservative Catholic COL Bacevich had written the Op-Ed and someone else had posted it, might you possibly read his words as criticizing the Clinton administration’s lack of preparedness? The Op-ed is titled “Obama’s Strategic Blind Spot” – that’s a criticism. Prof Bacevich’s critiques are not that different in policy recommendations than Ralph Peters, LTC USA (ret) which I’ve also posted. (Often disagree w/Peters as well.) [teasing shock] Max agrees with me -- someone better note this for SC history. [/teasing shock] Agree Libya is a great example, which we’ve discussed repeatedly here. Soft power combined with sanctions (the economic side of hard power) and diplomacy gave us what may be the single most successful foreign policy endeavor of the GW Bush administration! Give them credit! A good part of “promotion through attraction” are those intangibles and tangibles of soft power, strategic communications, and diplomacy – all tools of foreign policy. And why is it important, aka the ”So What? Who cares?” Because it makes executing America’s strategic and foreign policy goals easier and more effective. Easier equals less costly both in $$$ (i.e., American tax dollars) and decreased risk to deployed American service members. Soft power is also balanced with having the hard power (economic and military) as a counterweight particularly w/r/t deterrence. Since President Truman, the “strategy czar” has been the National Security Advisor (NSA). I strongly suspect Prof Bacevich is not suggesting another “czar” be appointed but is instead highlighting the lack of emphasis on and apparent interest in grand strategy since the end of the Cold War that thus far the Obama administration seems to be replicating. Especially in context of all sorts of other “czars” being appointed. While you and I may not agree with all his recommendations, his critique is perhaps too entirely rooted in the reality of the now, the last 8 years, and the last 40 years, viscerally so. It might not be everyone’s reality and I may disagree with many of his conclusions, but it’s reality. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Most important difference: the rule of law was followed in one case (US) and not in the other. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Nixon had tried to run a referendum to grant himself a third term? And it had been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court? And then he'd tried to remove the chief justice from office by force? And Congress had voted to remove Nixon and replace him? Wow, I knew Nixon had done some pretty bad stuff, but the history books don't appear to come even close to explaining how bad. No. Of course not. Pres Nixon, however, like Mr Zelaya was accused of violating the law and it appeared to a whole lot of people that he was pretty guilty. Unlike the case of Mr. Zelaya in Hondurus, impeachment hearings were held in Congressional Judiciary Committees in line with due process of law, he elected to resign, and he was not exiled by the military in his jammies. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

How do you assert as “proof” something will not work if it hasn’t been done? (It’s also not a good argument for “proof” that it will work either.) It might be an argument for or against something, but how is it “proof”? A priori assertion of proof would seem to necessitate a very high standard of evidence. What is the evidence? I think of proof of a policy’s effectiveness or lack thereof based on the outcome of policy (& how well it accomplishes or doesn’t the policy goals, e.g., strategic principles). How is an contested, asserted dichotomy “proof” something will not work? How are what Prof Bacevich outlines "soft" or "easy"? Imo, what he is suggesting are very hard/not easy issues with which to deal: homeland defense, bridging the exacerbating civil-military divide, controlled spending/budgeting, and lack of grand strategy since the collapse of the Soviet Union. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I don’t understand your statement … on multiple levels but I'll limit my responses to the Honduran military-backed coup comments. That may be because you did not quote my entire statement: I apologize if you mistook my lack of complete quotation in the intent of something other than concision. I also didn’t think that the ad hominem toward Bill was worth replicating. I consider Bill’s argument (and mine) to be more than just “convenience.” Again this is what I don't understand the comparing two different things to create a dichotomy that doesn’t exist. Bill (I’m pretty confident in asserting and even moreso that he'll tell me if he feels otherwise), you and me all don’t support the current Iranian regime or it’s actions. If the US was insisting that Mr. Zelaya’s alleged (you do recognize that they are allegations, yes?) actions in violation of the Honduran constitution be ignored or disregarded that would be a double standard. I.e., it’s okay if our ally does it, but not if Iran does it. If Mr. Zelaya altered the Constitution as he is has been alleged to intend to do so, and the US supported that, that would also be a double standard. But the US hasn’t done that. The US supports the return of the democratically-elected leader of an ally during his legal term to his nation-state. Exiling a democratically-elected leader during his legal term at gunpoint to a foreign state is outside of rule of law. Objecting to that is rhetoric that justifies us arguing that Iran should also follow the rule of law. Not the other way around. Whose law? What little you and I know about Honduran law (I'll admit I'm certainly no expert), and what I've been able to find written in english, Zelaya was attempting to amend the Honduran Constitution on a point that cannot be amended, and even if it could, only the Congress can do it, if voted on, twice. The Wall Street Journal radio program had a report that Zelaya is lucky to still have his citizenship. Again, as I'm reading it, there's a mixing of the alleged violations by Mr. Zelaya with the deposing and exile of a democratically-elected leader without any proceedings. That is to what the US and rest of OAS is objecting. I don’t know how else to write it more clearly. Article 239 Honduran Constitution is what Mr. Zelaya is alleged to have tried to violate. My translation (as always feel free to do your own translation or find another source): Article 239 - The citizen who has already held the position of head of the executive branch may not be President or Designee again. Anyone who violates this provision or changes it, as well as those who directly or indirectly support violation, will immediately cease the discharge of their duties, and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years. There's nothing about exile. The main issue is that the Supreme Court and military lacked the authority to do what they did. It would be sort of like the Supreme Court removing a US president because of allegations that laws were broken. No due process. The failure is a lack of an adequate impeachment process. Process matters. What there is, in article 241 is requirement that the President of the Republic shall not leave the country for more than fifteen days without the permission of Congress or its Standing Committee. Under Article 242, if the President does is out of the country for more than 15 days, the Constitution does state that the National Congress shall exercise the executive power for the remainder to complete the constitutional period. There’s where the exile comes in. He’s out of the country and thereby, under rule of law, can be legally removed. (Was that the intent of Constitution is a whole 'nother issue?) Was Mr. Zelaya acting counter to the intent of the Honduran Constitution? Perhaps, he was. I’m inclined to suspect he was. Does that mean rule of law should be ignored? No. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Thanks. Neat. Thought the father, Ken, was great choice. One point that I noticed was how both Ken & Pia largely built their respective arguments on consequences. E.g., the father asserted that CCL decreases crime as a justification. The consequence – decreased crime – justifies the policy. From a pragmatic perspective, that line of arguing can be used to argue for the utility. It’s good for policy arguments. Consequentialism is also the basis of Pia’s argument, i.e., guns should be restricted because of the potential negative consequences that she considers more important (initially). One ends up in a battle of metrics of consequences that may not be directly comparable, which doesn’t necessarily mean one can’t come up with reasonable ways to do so. In context of Speakers Corner, we argue consequences, both correlative and directly linked; we argue legal precedent, interpretation and law; we argue history; and we argue inherent rights. We have much broader and deeper, even if occasionally repetitive , discussions. Imo, when one starts justifying a right based on consequences, there is a potential erosion of the inherency of the right. It’s a different way of looking at it; recognize that it’s not meaningful for a lot/some (?) folks. C’est la vie teological. (How’s that for a different perspective, eh?) And yes, I agree, I thought it was a ‘happy ending.’

>180k Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I think that's a very cool way to look at it. Thanks for putting that out there. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Concur with the core lack of support for "czars." "Czars" have limited accountability and can have limited transparency. "Czars" create another layer of bureaucracy. Historically, "czars" have not been especially effective, regardless of administration. But they keep being used? Why? The argument that I've encountered is typically that they enable a single coordination point to deal with a policy issue that spans multiple departments/agencies. And they're supposed to "have the ear of the President." The biggest single problem with the “Czar” concept pragmatically is they have no real power, a point with which I disagree with the author of the Letter to the Editor. They don’t control budgets. They don't belong to a department, and the Executive Branch functions in departments and agencies. They oversee. (And almost noone likes oversight, whether 'friendly' or highly intrusive.) Seem like incredibly frustrating positions to me. They “coordinate” across departments. And, in no way am I down-playing the critical importance of coordination, e.g., across the intelligence community, local law enforcement with FBI, NIH with DoD on development of medical countermeasures against biological agents, EPA with DHS and DoD on standards for decontamination in event of biological or chemical event. If one doesn’t control a budget, it is very hard to make things happen especially if it’s not your department. Sometimes that’s not a bad thing tho’. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying