Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Thursday, April 23, 2009
ARRR!!
It is true, the parrot is gone, and the old pistol has been replaced with an RPG, but the pirate is still here. One of the 'simple' solutions to the problem of piracy is just to have the men of the cargo ships carry guns, but a classmate of mine, writing in the blog 'Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness' has a different point of view. She suggests that the "solution to the problem lies in reform on land, not guns at sea."
This seems makes sense. If we could control the land, where the pirates come from, we could control their effect at sea. But how would we control a foreign land? Easily, we could use our bloated military budget just land a battleship at every major port and take over operations. But if I try to use a bit of foresight, I may not see this being a great solution. Fortunately my classmate can see this too and also suggests America should not "pull a Panama-esque revolution in the African country to put a more pro-America/freedom of seas regime in power." Although if I were running for power in Africa I would be running under the freedom of seas slogan.
The suggested solution is to have reform come from within their own borders (maybe with a smidgen of U.N. help). Why doesn't Somalia think of this? I just got an email from an African prince, wanting some help in transferring funds to the U.S.; maybe I should suggest that solution to him. In truth, that would be an idea solution, however it will not happen in the near future. In the mean time we need to make our seas safe.
Perhaps if we were to punish the pirates we catch it would be a deterrent to other pirates. My classmate suggests having "these men need to be either tried and prosecuted in American courts (for their crimes are against Americans), or even better in International Court." Again, taking action against the pirates seems like a good idea on the surface, but lets look at what is really happening. These men are not working for themselves, and the people actually benefiting from piracy will not get caught by the navy. It would be a pretty small warlord if he had to do his own piracy. Once it was known what happened to the most recent group of pirates, a retaliation attack was mounted by the warlord and even more boats were taken! So again, how are we supposed to protect ourselves?
Guns.
This seems makes sense. If we could control the land, where the pirates come from, we could control their effect at sea. But how would we control a foreign land? Easily, we could use our bloated military budget just land a battleship at every major port and take over operations. But if I try to use a bit of foresight, I may not see this being a great solution. Fortunately my classmate can see this too and also suggests America should not "pull a Panama-esque revolution in the African country to put a more pro-America/freedom of seas regime in power." Although if I were running for power in Africa I would be running under the freedom of seas slogan.
The suggested solution is to have reform come from within their own borders (maybe with a smidgen of U.N. help). Why doesn't Somalia think of this? I just got an email from an African prince, wanting some help in transferring funds to the U.S.; maybe I should suggest that solution to him. In truth, that would be an idea solution, however it will not happen in the near future. In the mean time we need to make our seas safe.
Perhaps if we were to punish the pirates we catch it would be a deterrent to other pirates. My classmate suggests having "these men need to be either tried and prosecuted in American courts (for their crimes are against Americans), or even better in International Court." Again, taking action against the pirates seems like a good idea on the surface, but lets look at what is really happening. These men are not working for themselves, and the people actually benefiting from piracy will not get caught by the navy. It would be a pretty small warlord if he had to do his own piracy. Once it was known what happened to the most recent group of pirates, a retaliation attack was mounted by the warlord and even more boats were taken! So again, how are we supposed to protect ourselves?
Guns.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Wiretapping
While preaching protection from the government during his campaign, President Obama's administration has now made claims which reaffirm the old administration's policy on wiretapping. In the case Jewl vs. NSA, the Obama Administration's made two arguments. First, they argued that the state secrets privilege requires the court to dismiss the issue out of hand, that continuing the case would result in some breach of security. Second, the DOJ claims that the U.S. Government is completely immune from litigation for illegal spying, basically saying that unless the U.S. Government freely discloses information about you to the public, there is nothing you can do about it.
There has been some controversy about this apparent change in view, but I see nothing wrong with this. Who cares if the government gets a few phone records and investigates you? I may not necessarily think that this is the best use of tax dollars but I think it's a perfectly good use of technology.
It would be a pretty boring post if I were to bring up an issue and say I see nothing wrong with it, so I will try to defend this issue. For me to properly defend this issue though, I would need to know why people think it's bad. I would like some response to this, but in lieu of this I will try to think of reason why wiretapping may be seen as bad.
1. Bad use of tax dollars
2. Illegal
3. Violation of privacy
4. People may be afraid that the government will find illegal activities in their own life
For the first issue, it may be true, but I don't know any stats on the effectiveness of of wiretapping, so I can't say for certain.
For the second issue, these people are suing the government, the people who decide what is illegal and what is legal. That, and the government has made great strides on making it legal.
For the third issue, there may be a concern that the government will overstep its bounds in this situation, which would lead to a progression of a lack of privacy. This is perhaps a legitimate concern, but it is very hard to hypothesize on this scenario because it's hard to say whether people will acclimate to the lack of privacy and continue acclimating to further violations of privacy, or whether there is a point where people will not stand for such inquiries into their personal life. Will the government stop at wiretapping, or will it get to the point that the government will be able to pull your car over, have you step you, put a bag over your head and search our car without any reason or warrant. The issue there isn't that the government would plant evidence and falsely accuse you, but no citizen would want to be treated like that, and if wiretapping if found to be legal, it reaffirms the notion that the government is in control, not the citizens. That being said, there is also clearly a need to protect national security, so we must ask ourselves what we are willing to give up in order to live safely. If you are not willing to give up anything, I wish you luck when (not if) some less than scrupulous person decides to take advantage of you. Personally, I am willing to let the government listen to my calls.
For the fourth issue, if you are doing something illegal, you should be prosecuted.
There has been some controversy about this apparent change in view, but I see nothing wrong with this. Who cares if the government gets a few phone records and investigates you? I may not necessarily think that this is the best use of tax dollars but I think it's a perfectly good use of technology.
It would be a pretty boring post if I were to bring up an issue and say I see nothing wrong with it, so I will try to defend this issue. For me to properly defend this issue though, I would need to know why people think it's bad. I would like some response to this, but in lieu of this I will try to think of reason why wiretapping may be seen as bad.
1. Bad use of tax dollars
2. Illegal
3. Violation of privacy
4. People may be afraid that the government will find illegal activities in their own life
For the first issue, it may be true, but I don't know any stats on the effectiveness of of wiretapping, so I can't say for certain.
For the second issue, these people are suing the government, the people who decide what is illegal and what is legal. That, and the government has made great strides on making it legal.
For the third issue, there may be a concern that the government will overstep its bounds in this situation, which would lead to a progression of a lack of privacy. This is perhaps a legitimate concern, but it is very hard to hypothesize on this scenario because it's hard to say whether people will acclimate to the lack of privacy and continue acclimating to further violations of privacy, or whether there is a point where people will not stand for such inquiries into their personal life. Will the government stop at wiretapping, or will it get to the point that the government will be able to pull your car over, have you step you, put a bag over your head and search our car without any reason or warrant. The issue there isn't that the government would plant evidence and falsely accuse you, but no citizen would want to be treated like that, and if wiretapping if found to be legal, it reaffirms the notion that the government is in control, not the citizens. That being said, there is also clearly a need to protect national security, so we must ask ourselves what we are willing to give up in order to live safely. If you are not willing to give up anything, I wish you luck when (not if) some less than scrupulous person decides to take advantage of you. Personally, I am willing to let the government listen to my calls.
For the fourth issue, if you are doing something illegal, you should be prosecuted.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Earth's Doctor
According to James Lovelock, a writer at the BBC, the earth is becoming sick, and Gaia will take her revenge if nothing is done!!! This is the apocalyptic tone of the recent article from BBC, "The illness in Planet Earth". (Thanks to wikipedia, I too now know what is meant by Gaia.)
From what I have found, James Lovelock is a reasonably respected scientist, but I can't help but think that the sensational journalist in him got a bit keyboard-happy. The first three-quarters of this article are little better than a maniacal rant. Within the article, the temperature increase is presumed to be on the order of 3-5 degrees Celsius (5-9 degrees Fahrenheit) over the course of the century, but what I don't know is how this change leads to the claim that "Siberia and northern Canada may flourish." The people there probably wouldn't complain if it got a little warmer, but with an average annual temperature of 0C, something tells me an average annual temperature of 4C will not suddenly become the new 'hottest vacation spot' (pardon the pun). Lovelock also predicts a mass exodus of people from mainland Europe to Great Brittan. I may not live in Europe, but it did study in London, and from that experience I can not fathom what makes him think there will be an exodus to Great Brittan of all places.
On the other hand, Lovelock promotes a very noble idea: the idea that, like WWII Brittan, people are charged with a sense of purpose and are willing to work once the call arises. I have never seen, nor have I ever been a part of such an event, but what an event it would be! Would it be good if everyone came to the rescue of the earth? If everyone took responsibility for themselves, and took initiative to undo what has already been done? If only I could imagine such a response! But then I think about the ramifications of those hypothetical actions. All those power plants that produce all those noxious gasses provided power for us to use. All those cars that pollute the air transport us around the world. The bottom line is that the easiest way to pollute less is to use less, but who is going to volunteer for that?
Lovelock does something in this article that I do not see often, but wish I did; he offers a critique of his views within the article itself! These may be skewed too, but they do temper the sensationalism expressed in the article, bringing the ideas of 'certain doom' down to the level of 'probabilistic unpleasantness'. One of the most key ideas presented in the critique of the article is that idea that assertions about issues like global warming, which are not completely understood by science, should not be presented as scientifically verified facts. Much of the science used to understand global warming is still coming into maturity, and should be treated as such.
From what I have found, James Lovelock is a reasonably respected scientist, but I can't help but think that the sensational journalist in him got a bit keyboard-happy. The first three-quarters of this article are little better than a maniacal rant. Within the article, the temperature increase is presumed to be on the order of 3-5 degrees Celsius (5-9 degrees Fahrenheit) over the course of the century, but what I don't know is how this change leads to the claim that "Siberia and northern Canada may flourish." The people there probably wouldn't complain if it got a little warmer, but with an average annual temperature of 0C, something tells me an average annual temperature of 4C will not suddenly become the new 'hottest vacation spot' (pardon the pun). Lovelock also predicts a mass exodus of people from mainland Europe to Great Brittan. I may not live in Europe, but it did study in London, and from that experience I can not fathom what makes him think there will be an exodus to Great Brittan of all places.
On the other hand, Lovelock promotes a very noble idea: the idea that, like WWII Brittan, people are charged with a sense of purpose and are willing to work once the call arises. I have never seen, nor have I ever been a part of such an event, but what an event it would be! Would it be good if everyone came to the rescue of the earth? If everyone took responsibility for themselves, and took initiative to undo what has already been done? If only I could imagine such a response! But then I think about the ramifications of those hypothetical actions. All those power plants that produce all those noxious gasses provided power for us to use. All those cars that pollute the air transport us around the world. The bottom line is that the easiest way to pollute less is to use less, but who is going to volunteer for that?
Lovelock does something in this article that I do not see often, but wish I did; he offers a critique of his views within the article itself! These may be skewed too, but they do temper the sensationalism expressed in the article, bringing the ideas of 'certain doom' down to the level of 'probabilistic unpleasantness'. One of the most key ideas presented in the critique of the article is that idea that assertions about issues like global warming, which are not completely understood by science, should not be presented as scientifically verified facts. Much of the science used to understand global warming is still coming into maturity, and should be treated as such.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
The future of energy
On February 25th 2009, The New York Times published as article about the energy plans of president Obama.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/opinion/26thu1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
The author seems optimistic, but remembers the similarities between Mr. Obama's start and former president Bush's start. He also remembers that it has been "four decades since Richard Nixon urged Congress to free the nation from its dependence on foreign oil", but we all know how much America relies on foreign oil now. This is probably a pretty safe stance, hoping for the best but expecting what we have come to expect.
Unfortunately I see very little in the way of a plan, whether it is details on Obama's plan, or comments on any sort of plan. The most I find in the way of what we will use to 'defeat global warming' is the obligatory phrase "renewable energy sources like wind and solar". Even if Obama doubles the amount of solar and wind energy this country produces, where would that bring the total? 5%? It would be a step in the positive direction, but we need a bigger step.
The other point of this 'new' source of energy is that it can help to improve the economy, which is probably true and a very valiant effort. This point should appeal to a wide variety of either grad students or technical workers.
As for the last sentence in this editorial, the country has been challenged for the past 40 years. Mr. Obama will have to do better to actually change something.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/opinion/26thu1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
The author seems optimistic, but remembers the similarities between Mr. Obama's start and former president Bush's start. He also remembers that it has been "four decades since Richard Nixon urged Congress to free the nation from its dependence on foreign oil", but we all know how much America relies on foreign oil now. This is probably a pretty safe stance, hoping for the best but expecting what we have come to expect.
Unfortunately I see very little in the way of a plan, whether it is details on Obama's plan, or comments on any sort of plan. The most I find in the way of what we will use to 'defeat global warming' is the obligatory phrase "renewable energy sources like wind and solar". Even if Obama doubles the amount of solar and wind energy this country produces, where would that bring the total? 5%? It would be a step in the positive direction, but we need a bigger step.
The other point of this 'new' source of energy is that it can help to improve the economy, which is probably true and a very valiant effort. This point should appeal to a wide variety of either grad students or technical workers.
As for the last sentence in this editorial, the country has been challenged for the past 40 years. Mr. Obama will have to do better to actually change something.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Salary Cap
If you haven't heard, executives whose companies took money from the financial bailout plan are having their salary capped at $500,000. Undoubtedly anyone reading this blog would be more likely to see this type of money from winning the lottery than from actually working (which basically means that it's not going to happen).
But how likely is it that some of us will be making $50,000 within the next decade? A recent article in the New York Times suggested that a six figure income in New York was only worth about $50,000 in Houston.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/fashion/08halfmill.html?em
Let me first clarify by saying that I still believe $500,000 (or a mere $250,000 here in TX) is plenty of money to live on, even for a top executive. Just because you are at the top of a company that just had to be given a few billion dollars, does not mean that you should forget where Walmart is located. On the other side of that, just because you can pay the minimum payment on a loan does not mean that the minimum payment will even cover the interest you incur.
The article suggests that the executives need to keep up appearances similar that of their peers, and this is understandable. It is vary naive to suggest that anyone would regularly associate with someone who has significant differences, and financial restrictions can create these differences. Even so, something tells me that these are not the people that clip coupons, these people buy fitted suits, these people live in houses that cost more than I will make in a lifetime. I have little sympathy for someone making $500,000, but I would not be happy either if my income just became 1/6th of what it was.
But how likely is it that some of us will be making $50,000 within the next decade? A recent article in the New York Times suggested that a six figure income in New York was only worth about $50,000 in Houston.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/fashion/08halfmill.html?em
Let me first clarify by saying that I still believe $500,000 (or a mere $250,000 here in TX) is plenty of money to live on, even for a top executive. Just because you are at the top of a company that just had to be given a few billion dollars, does not mean that you should forget where Walmart is located. On the other side of that, just because you can pay the minimum payment on a loan does not mean that the minimum payment will even cover the interest you incur.
The article suggests that the executives need to keep up appearances similar that of their peers, and this is understandable. It is vary naive to suggest that anyone would regularly associate with someone who has significant differences, and financial restrictions can create these differences. Even so, something tells me that these are not the people that clip coupons, these people buy fitted suits, these people live in houses that cost more than I will make in a lifetime. I have little sympathy for someone making $500,000, but I would not be happy either if my income just became 1/6th of what it was.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Comments on the Constitution
Amending the constitution, as was said by Larry J. Sabato, Government Professor at the University of Virginia, should not be taken lightly, but it is reasonable to update the basis of a government to suit the time at hand. There are very prevalent issues for the current generation which were not known at the time the constitution was written. In short, the founding fathers could not predict the behavior of future generations; and it is the social and moral behavior of a generation which defines how much freedom that generation should have. Just as the freedoms of prisoners have been restricted due to a lack of social or moral conscience, the baseline freedoms of a generation need to be tempered, either toward more or less freedom. It is my opinion that we should worry less about changing the constitution and worry more about changing the people under the constitution.
I feel that many of the suggested changes to the constitution designed to "level the playing field" or to "be more representative" are purely a ruse for government officials to avoid real problems. Granting more spots in the Senate and House of Representatives is only going to result in more people who can slow the government down if the quality and character of our representatives is left unchecked. The perfect example of this happening right now is nuclear waste storage. No official wants to suggest a solution to store nuclear waste since there is a solution right now which will last until the end of their foreseeable career.
There are also very good suggestions for amending the constitution. Giving the president a line-item veto would make so many good bills into great bills. Encouraging fiscal fairness and revising campaign practices may even bring about a better quality representative.
If I could offer an amendment to the constitution, I would mandate that at least half of the representatives in the House of Representatives and Senate have significant study in a technically scientific area. This is not to suggest that half of our representatives should be engineers and scientists (engineers and scientists have a different niche), but the lack of technical scientific knowledge is appalling.
I feel that many of the suggested changes to the constitution designed to "level the playing field" or to "be more representative" are purely a ruse for government officials to avoid real problems. Granting more spots in the Senate and House of Representatives is only going to result in more people who can slow the government down if the quality and character of our representatives is left unchecked. The perfect example of this happening right now is nuclear waste storage. No official wants to suggest a solution to store nuclear waste since there is a solution right now which will last until the end of their foreseeable career.
There are also very good suggestions for amending the constitution. Giving the president a line-item veto would make so many good bills into great bills. Encouraging fiscal fairness and revising campaign practices may even bring about a better quality representative.
If I could offer an amendment to the constitution, I would mandate that at least half of the representatives in the House of Representatives and Senate have significant study in a technically scientific area. This is not to suggest that half of our representatives should be engineers and scientists (engineers and scientists have a different niche), but the lack of technical scientific knowledge is appalling.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
