November, 2007 archive
Drumbeats 0
Mark Bowden in Sunday’s local rag:
Yet somehow we persist in believing the opposite. Just weeks ago, President Bush famously remarked, “I’ve told people that, if you’re interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing [Iran] from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.”
The WWIII mention got the most attention, but it was the last part of his comment that was the most startling to me.
(snip)
With U.S. forces occupying Iraq and Afghanistan, and with a nuclear Pakistan on Iran’s southeastern border, the Islamist Republic is surrounded by nuclear-armed adversaries. When I visited Tehran several years ago, even moderate pro-West Iranians who could read a map supported development of their own nuclear deterrent. They scoffed at the idea that they should be prevented from doing so by the United States or anyone else, just as Americans would scoff at the idea that Russia should dictate the terms of our own security.
“What hypocrisy!” one friendly Iranian journalist remarked to me. I suspect the bellicose policies of the Bush administration have done little to dampen this point of view, and have done much to strengthen the hand of the religious radicals in charge.
If ever Theodore Roosevelt’s advice – “Speak softly and carry a big stick” – made sense, it does so today in our dealings with Iran. The outcome we should most desire is for the mullahs to conclude that the cost of building a handful of nukes is too great, and that the advantage in having them is too small. The more Iran feels threatened, the less likely that becomes.
Mr. Bowden misses the point.
The Current Federal Administration is in no way connected with reality.
David Frum thinks it’s all talk and no action. Follow the link to listen to the interview:
But, mark this! anyone who has said, “Oh, well, the Bushies couldn’t possible mean that,” has been proven wrong, over and over again, as the Current Federal Administration has pursued its apparent goals of making the rich, richer; the poor, poorer: and betraying the ideals of the Founders.
Drinking Liberally 0
Tomorrow, Tangier Restaurant, 18th and Lombard, Center City Philadelphia. Good food, good companionship, and it isn’t always all about politics.
I’ll be visiting a sick friend, but you can be there.
The E. R. Is No Place To Spend a Sunday 5
Or any other day, for that matter.
But at 6:00 on a Sunday morning, you do get quick service. All the knifings and shootings are taken care of, and the lawn mower and leaf blower accidents haven’t started yet.
My girlfriend developed a nosebleed early this morning. To stop it, the doctor had to inflate a balloon in her nose (think: abscessed tooth pain levels).
She will remain in the hospital until the device can be removed, at least one night, possibly two.
A View on Immigration 4
This is the first explanation of the “why” for the wave of illegal immigration that I have seen. The author has a hypothesis as to why illegal immigration has exploded in the past two decades.
What do y’all think?
On Immigration and Population Demographics Raymond Krauss Lost in the current debate on immigration reform is the decline of fertility rates in the latter part of the 20th century in the United Stated. The fertility rate during the post WW II baby boom (1946-1965) averaged 3.5. After 1965, the rate dropped below 2.0 and stayed there. This baby boom bulge is about to cause the graying of America and with it serious problems for our economy, social security and Medicare.
The high fertility rate of the baby boomers (more children were born between 1948 and 1953 than the previous 30 years combined) would have spelled disaster in most other parts of the world. But here and in Europe, it caused an economic boom the likes of which the world had never seen. American business rode high on a mighty demographic wave. Sales in everything from hula hoops to personal computers rose thanks to a steadily growing customer base. As this baby boom wave recedes into retirement, sales will fall, and the economy will need to contract, rather than expand. The 60 year economic boom we have enjoyed may well turn into a bust. Real estate will be hard hit. Fewer young and middle aged people mean lower demand for housing and lower prices. This has already started. A slower economy also means lower tax revenues for the government.
This brings us to the social security crisis. The baby boomers will live longer and collect benefits longer than ever before, and lower rates of fertility are restraining the growth of the working age population who pay social security taxes. Under the current system, this will mean severe increases in social security withholding taxes for the same working age population.
Depopulation will cause even more problems with the working man’s Medicare deductions. Medicare problems are two fold: the rising number of enrollees and the rapidly climbing costs of medical treatment. The expansion of the elder population would not in itself be a problem if the number of workers paying into the program were growing at an equally rapid pace. Unfortunately, the labor force will be growing much more slowly than the retiree population for decades after 2010. It all comes back to the baby boom phenomenon. Again, the net result, less take home pay for working age people.
Symbolism 1
As a Southerner, I know the mixed feelings about the Confederate battle ensign.
But, nonetheless, I also know what it means to most of the world.
Indeed, my brother summed that up in a quotation in this post.
So, as far as I am concerned, when Cheney’s cronies fly the Stars and Bars, it sends a message.
Or, probably more likely, it tells a truth.
Attitude, Schmattitude 1
The Diversity Monster surfaced at the University of Delaware.
But the program backfired after they were told to write down stereotypes of different ethnic and religious groups and publicly give their views on issues such as gay marriage and affirmative action.
(snip)
Delaware’s diversity training program is under scrutiny after students complained that they were pressed to adopt university-approved views on race and other sensitive topics, participate in squirm-inducing exercises, and rated on their responses to questions about their sexual and cultural beliefs.
Parents and professors also complained that the program is politically slanted, citing training material that claims all white people living in the United States are racist.
What is the Diversity Monster?
Well, it has nothing to do with the social, religious, ethnic, cultural, and racial make-up of the population of the United States of America.
Yes, America has a population of truly diverse backgrounds, perhaps the most diverse in the world. And, for a number of valid reasons (I won’t go into the history here–it’s readily available), one of the side effects of this diversity is the creation of the Diversity Monster.
So what exactly is this monster?
It’s the thriving little industry of consultants (many of them well-intentioned) and charlatans (many of them trying to become well-heeled, others just jumping on the bandwagon of the day) who think that by, structuring experiences designed to expose persons’ opinions and prejudices in small (and sometimes large) groups and then humiliating persons for those opinions, they can somehow change “attitudes” and eliminate bigotry.
It is a fitting offspring of EST.
Just for grins and giggles, take a break and google “diversity consultants.” I just did, and I got “approximately 1,870,000” hits, to cite the results page.
These projects are doomed to failure.
Why? Because there is no such thing as an “attitude.” There is therefore nothing to change.
If I say, for example, that “Opie has such-and-such an attitude,” I’m not talking about Opie.
His “attitude” doesn’t exist in his head.
It exists in mine. It is a judgement that I make of Opie based on the behaviors I have observed. I can’t change it in him because it doesn’t exist in him.
There is no such thing as “attitude.”
There is only behavior.
Now, I’m not arguing that racist, sexist, cultural, and other types of bigotry don’t exist.
Just go here to see numerous examples of them. (And leave a donation when you do. Morris Dees is the Real Deal.)
And what are those examples? Examples of . . .
(Wait for it.)
. . . Behavior.
The way to grapple with misconduct, whether it’s based on race, color, religion, creed, sex, national origin, disability, age, veteran status, and (in some jurisdictions) sexual orientation, is to grapple with . . .
(Wait for it.)
. . . Behavior.
In one of my previous incarnations, I taught a class that was colloquially referred to as “EEO training.” It really wasn’t “equal employment opportunity” training. It was training in how not to get the company in trouble with the EEOC (not something to worry about these days).
We would open the class by telling the attendees (who usually weren’t to happy to be there, but it was mandatory for all supervisors at all levels) that we were not there to change–or even to talk about–what they believed or felt, that the company did not have the right to dictate beliefs to them.
But, we would go on, the company sure as shootin’ had the right to tell them what they could and could not do on company property or on duty and how they must respond if a problem was brought to their attention.
By the end of the day, the attendees were generally glad they had been there, because they had not realized how behaviors they exhibited or witnessed might come across to others.
And, you know what, that class changed behaviors.
After a decade of this training, my employer, who had had a pretty bad record in this area (including signing a consent decree, which, as I’ve pointed out before, companies don’t do without reason), not through malice, but through inadvertence and ignorance, ended up being ranked as one of the best places for members of societal minorities to work.
And if someone’s behavior is acceptable, frankly, what the hell does it matter in day-to-day conduct what feelings or opinions may lurk inside the dark recesses of someone’s soul?
As one of my ex-colleagues used to say, “If you get ’em by the behaviors, the hearts and minds will follow.”
And if you try to change attitudes, you are doomed to failure and, and, as in the case of U.Del., richly deserved derision.
Hat tip to Linda for the first hint of this story.
C-5 0
I don’t care how many times I see one of these fly over, it’s still as impressive as the first time.
(Warning, check your volume before clicking the link.)
Adventures in Podcasts: Hilary Clinton Addition 0
One of my favorite radio shows is Radio Times. Each topic gets a full hour and Mary Moss Coane is a skilled interviewer.
She interviewed Carl Bernstein recently regarding his new book about Hilary Clinton. I listened to the show on my way to the cooling tower place via podcast.
It was a fascinating discussion. Given the current political race, I would recommend a listen to the interview.
But even Mary Moss Coane couldn’t control Carl Bernstein. I would have to say that, like, you know, how can I say it, he ran the interview.
For facts, it was fascinating. For anyone who has ever tried to control a conversation (like us ex-tech support types), it was a hoot.
I recommend it on both levels. Go to the website, select “browse archives,” and navigate to the October 30, 2007, show or listen here (Real Audio).
(All joking aside, it was a very interesting interview. Give it a listen.)
