« February 2006 | Main | April 2006 »
March 30, 2006
Mapping troop casualties
An interesting flash map of troop casualties in Iraq has been posted here. It goes from the opening of the war in March 2003 to February 2006. 10 frames per second, one frame = one day, one dot = one more friend/family member not going home.
It is important to note that this is only foreign troop casualties, the 20,000 to 30,000 slain Iraqis (civilian, military, insurgent, etc.) are not mapped.
Posted by Potter at 12:23 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
March 27, 2006
Monday Numbers
The following comes from this list of the top fifty countries containing the largest percentage of people who do not believe in God.
- 1. Sweden - 85%
- 2. Vietnam - 81%
- 3. Denmark - 80%
- 4. Norway - 72%
- 5. Japan - 65%
- 6. Czech Republic - 61%
- 44. United States - 9%
The figures don't necessarily represent the number of atheists. I'm not entirely sure how the study was conducted, but I know it didn't distinguish between agnostic and atheism, or other forms of non-deistic spirituality, for that matter.
Although the numbers themselves are interesting, it would be fascinating to see cross tabulations with other demographics. Are there any correlations between wealth, political structure, etc. and whether or not the inhabitants of a nation believe in God? How do the "Godless" societies rank in terms of indicators of societal health (e.g., crime rates, public health, percent in poverty)? Where does the Flying Spaghetti Monster fit into all of this?
Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 9:09 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
March 23, 2006
The Israel Lobby
From two researchers from Harvard and Chicago University, a report on the Israel Lobby.
Though it is easy to dismiss talk of influence on the American government from foreign sources, especially with a country like Israel that we may inherently feel an ideological bond to, this paper does an excellent job of examining the United States foreign policy in the Middle East. The Middle East, as we know, has been a host to problems across the spectrum: corruption, violence, and zealotry have reigned supreme in the past fifty years. So in an arena marked by shades of greys, Mearsheimer & Walt do an excellent job of exposing how and why we have choosen our principle ally in the region.
By the numbers comes the greatest basis of support, right off the bat:
Since the October War in 1973, Washington has provided Israel with a level of support dwarfing that given to any other state. It has been the largest annual recipient of direct economic and military assistance since 1976, and is the largest recipient in total since World War Two, to the tune of well over $140 billion (in 2004 dollars). Israel receives about $3 billion in direct assistance each year, roughly one-fifth of the foreign aid budget, and worth about $500 a year for every Israeli. This largesse is especially striking since Israel is now a wealthy industrial state with a per capita income roughly equal to that of South Korea or Spain.
The thrust of the paper actually comes two paragraphs in:
Instead, the thrust of US policy in the region derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the ‘Israel Lobby’. Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US interests and those of the other country – in this case, Israel – are essentially identical.
And at the end, a powerful message about the affect when a lobbying group becomes too strong for our own good:
There is a ray of hope, however. Although the Lobby remains a powerful force, the adverse effects of its influence are increasingly difficult to hide. Powerful states can maintain flawed policies for quite some time, but reality cannot be ignored for ever. What is needed is a candid discussion of the Lobby’s influence and a more open debate about US interests in this vital region. Israel’s well-being is one of those interests, but its continued occupation of the West Bank and its broader regional agenda are not. Open debate will expose the limits of the strategic and moral case for one-sided US support and could move the US to a position more consistent with its own national interest, with the interests of the other states in the region, and with Israel’s long-term interests as well.
There is a full, unedited version of this paper available at Harvard.
Posted by Alec at 11:56 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
March 22, 2006
I know that kid
A recent study from The Journal of Research Into Personality found that “the whiny, insecure kid in nursery school, the one who always thought everyone was out to get him, and was always running to the teacher with complaints” typically grew up to be a conservative, while the “confident, resilient, self-reliant kids mostly grew up to be liberals.”
Statistically, it's hard to make this article stand up as valid for the entire population. The study was limited to the Berkely area, which is hardly representative of the entire nation. And, as Callimachus points out at Donklephant, a person's early 20s is not necessarily the stopping point in political or personal growth (although I believe I have seen statistical studies that suggest it is for most people).
But the study does raise some interesting points about personality differences between liberals and conservatives that are interesting in these polarized times. The author of the study suggests, "“insecure kids look for the reassurance provided by tradition and authority, and find it in conservative politics. The more confident kids are eager to explore alternatives to the way things are, and find liberal politics more congenial.”
That is a big conclusion to jump to based on a single personality study. What about the childrens' parents? Were they liberal or conservative and how much of their own values did they pass on? Were they authoratative or lax in their parenting methods? Personally, I think it's an interesting topic, but it would be a tough one to tackle professionally. You can't study scatology and not expect to get covered in...well... you know.
Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 12:47 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
March 21, 2006
Real?
Deviating from what I normally write about, I thought I'd bring this to everyone's attention.
From http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040122-5.html
THE PRESIDENT: Stretch, thank you, this is not a press conference. This is my chance to help this lady put some money in her pocket. Let me explain how the economy works. When you spend money to buy food it helps this lady's business. It makes it more likely somebody is going to find work. So instead of asking questions, answer mine: are you going to buy some food?Q Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Okay, good. What would you like?
Q Ribs.
THE PRESIDENT: Ribs? Good. Let's order up some ribs.
Q What do you think of the democratic field, sir?
Is this the only reality that I will ever know?
Posted by Alec at 1:51 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
March 19, 2006
China: Land reform & protests
In today's South China Morning Post (no story link as I'm going off the print edition that I was reading over breakfast) there was an article about the latest in the ebb and flow of protests in China over land seizures by the government. This instance involved a sit in protests staged just outside of Tianjin, the main port city outside Beijing, where the protesters cited comments by Premier Wen Jiabao as evidence of their rights to the land. On Tuesday Wen stated that:
We need to respect the democratic rights of the farmers, especially their right to independently operate their contracted land.
The article noted that Wen gave no specifics on what this meant, however protesters have latched onto this statement as proof that the local government must listen to their demands.
I find this anj interesting development in what has been a very tense situation in China over the last year. The SCMP quotes government reports that show "public order disturbances" having risen by 6.6% last year and "mass gatherings that disturbed social order" as having risen 13%. As you may recall, in December an estimated 20 protesters were killed by police in Guangdong province, an event which is still causing headaches for China.
Wen, speaking for the top levels of the Communist Party, has used the opportunity to < a href="http://english.people.com.cn/200603/14/eng20060314_250552.html">blame lower echelons of the government as a way of resolving the social problems without the central government losing face. This is an interesting way for them to deal with the situation without actually dealing with it as it allows the CCP to institute reform without itself being in the wrong. One would hope that this approach means that there is a real chance for reform under the guise of correcting deficiencies in the lower levels of the party and government.
However, I caution against too much hope in this regard. If I may quote some statistics that I was shown by a sociologist inside China (and told not to divulge the source), something like 70% of the population believes that the problems they face are the result of mistakes by local and district level government and that the central government can fix the situation. Startlingly, that confidence in the central government falls to 25% after people make their appeals to the central apparatus. Now these numbers are several years old but they do not speak well of the Center's ability to deal with these issues.
Though I would like to believe that the recent statements by Wen indicate a shift in the government's posture, history doesn't suggest that any big changes will really be made. However, perhaps this is a harbinger of a gradual shift in government policy that would give more rights (at least in regards to land) to the people. I am hesitant to make this suggestion as the situation in China changes at a very slow pace and one cannot expect anything to happen in the next year or even five years.
My biggest fear is that the changes needed to at least appease the population will not be made in time for the 2008 and that shortly before, or during, the Olympics there will be massive protest and subsequent crackdown. Only time will tell. If in the next year the number of protests continue to rise, China could be in for some major clashes between the people and the CCP.
Posted by Potter at 10:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
March 17, 2006
Water: Poor countries' oil
From the Forbes:
Water is worth fighting for - even to the death, activists holding an "alternate" forum outside the world water summit said Friday. That attitude might seem strange in developed countries, where water flows at the touch of a faucet. But it isn't nearly as accessible in the developing world.On Thursday, youths in ski masks attacked journalists and fought with police, smashing a patrol car and hurling rocks during largely peaceful water forum protests involving about 10,000 marchers.
Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 9:04 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
March 15, 2006
US and THEM
From Jingo by Terry Prachett:
It was because he wanted there to be conspirators. It was much better to imagine men in some smokey room somewhere, made mad and cynical by privilege and power, plotting over the brandy. You had to cling to that sort of image, because if you didn't then you might have to face the fact that bad things happened because ordinary people, the kind who brushed the dog and told their children bedtime stories, were capable of then going out and doing horrible things to other ordinary people.It was so much easier to blam it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was Us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do bad things.
Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 8:44 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
March 5, 2006
Tuesday numbers
I've always felt that the if there are answers to the question of human nature, they lie in numbers. Philosophers can ponder and hypothesize, but the conclusions they come to about the nature of humanity are based on anecdotal evidence and limited perspectives. But human behavior (and even opinions) can be represented numerically, and those numbers typically form patterns.
The numbers above definitely aren't a definitive representation of humanity. But they pretty well sum up how I've been seeing things lately (I only wish I could find the actual amounts spent carrying out terrorist attacks and protesting cartoons, which I am sure exceeds the amount the UN is asking for to feed starving Africans).
Posted by Elyas Bakhtiari at 12:40 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack