Saturday, February 4, 2012
Parenting in US and France
Here is a good comparative analysis of parenting in US in France. If you are interested in parenting or psychology, then you will be interested in the points that this article makes about delaying gratification, self-sufficiency and parental authority.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Separation of the state and the religion
These statements put Obama fair and square together with other political leaders guided by the teaching of Jesus, notably Rick Perry and George W. Bush.
"President Obama used an appearance at the National Prayer Breakfast on Thursday to reaffirm his faith at a time when Republican critics have accused him of a “war on religion,” telling an audience of religious leaders that his policies are grounded in his Christian beliefs.
Obama, speaking to 3,000 people at the Washington Hilton, used passages from the Bible to make the case that his push for a more equitable economy is rooted in a long-honored value system. And he suggested that his proposal to increase taxes on wealthier Americans is consistent with the teachings of Jesus."
Unquestionably, this qualifies for my "theatre of the absurd" section.
"President Obama used an appearance at the National Prayer Breakfast on Thursday to reaffirm his faith at a time when Republican critics have accused him of a “war on religion,” telling an audience of religious leaders that his policies are grounded in his Christian beliefs.
Obama, speaking to 3,000 people at the Washington Hilton, used passages from the Bible to make the case that his push for a more equitable economy is rooted in a long-honored value system. And he suggested that his proposal to increase taxes on wealthier Americans is consistent with the teachings of Jesus."
Unquestionably, this qualifies for my "theatre of the absurd" section.
"This is not class warfare -- It's math"
In my yesterday post I noted together the two facts that Reuters preferred to publish on separate days: the size of the planned US budget deficit for the fiscal year 2012 (about $1 trillion), and the amount of revenue that is expected from the "Buffet tax" on the millionaires:
"Revenue generated from the tax has yet to be officially calculated, but Whitehouse said it could raise $40 billion to $50 billion a year."
"This is not class warfare -- It's math" - Barack Obama
"Revenue generated from the tax has yet to be officially calculated, but Whitehouse said it could raise $40 billion to $50 billion a year."
"This is not class warfare -- It's math" - Barack Obama
Why some social movements succeed?
A behind-the-scenes alliance between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul.
My comments:
1. This is a smart policy on Romney's side, since, as the article correctly notes, Ron Paul's supporters are a significant and loyal group within the Republican electorate.
2. Let's give some credit to Ron Paul - he is willing to engage with those who are more likely to win the presidency, for the sake of achieving his goals. This puts him apart from the typical fringe parties which put their ideological purity above any compromise needed to implement their ideas in practice. This is how democracy works - by compromising interests of different groups.
3. Ron Paul also shows a way for social movements to actually achieve some of their goals. Recently, there have been too much excitement about the spontaneous shows of unity, such as the Arab revolutions, as well as the social movements such as the Tent City and the Occupy Wall St. In the aftermath one recognizes that the failure of these movements to achieve substantial results stems precisely from their lack of leadership and their reluctance to engage in politics. The successful examples are the Tea Party, which influences politics via many low-rank elected representatives in the US Congress, as well as the Libertarian movement, represented by a charismatic high-profile politician, such as Ron Paul.
My comments:
1. This is a smart policy on Romney's side, since, as the article correctly notes, Ron Paul's supporters are a significant and loyal group within the Republican electorate.
2. Let's give some credit to Ron Paul - he is willing to engage with those who are more likely to win the presidency, for the sake of achieving his goals. This puts him apart from the typical fringe parties which put their ideological purity above any compromise needed to implement their ideas in practice. This is how democracy works - by compromising interests of different groups.
3. Ron Paul also shows a way for social movements to actually achieve some of their goals. Recently, there have been too much excitement about the spontaneous shows of unity, such as the Arab revolutions, as well as the social movements such as the Tent City and the Occupy Wall St. In the aftermath one recognizes that the failure of these movements to achieve substantial results stems precisely from their lack of leadership and their reluctance to engage in politics. The successful examples are the Tea Party, which influences politics via many low-rank elected representatives in the US Congress, as well as the Libertarian movement, represented by a charismatic high-profile politician, such as Ron Paul.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Win of secular right in Israel
In Likud primaries current Israeli prime minister won by a huge margin:
"With 85 percent of votes counted, Netanyahu was leading with 75 percent of votes. Rival Moshe Feiglin took 24%."
1. This is a clear triumph for the secular Israeli right. Combined with the recent Labor primary and the Labor's rise in popularity, we may expect a serious debate during the next election election, rather than a competition between the ideological left and the religious right.
2. Note that Netanyahu has clearly moved towards the center, which accords with the pattern demonstrated by the previous right-wing prime ministers (notably Begin and Sharon):
"A boycott of the vote called by Likud activists in Judea and Samaria to protest Netanyahu’s settlement policies appeared to have succeeded, as polling stations there had an exceptionally low turnout. The organizers of the boycott expressed outrage when people loyal to Feiglin sent text messages saying that the boycott had been canceled."
"With 85 percent of votes counted, Netanyahu was leading with 75 percent of votes. Rival Moshe Feiglin took 24%."
1. This is a clear triumph for the secular Israeli right. Combined with the recent Labor primary and the Labor's rise in popularity, we may expect a serious debate during the next election election, rather than a competition between the ideological left and the religious right.
2. Note that Netanyahu has clearly moved towards the center, which accords with the pattern demonstrated by the previous right-wing prime ministers (notably Begin and Sharon):
"A boycott of the vote called by Likud activists in Judea and Samaria to protest Netanyahu’s settlement policies appeared to have succeeded, as polling stations there had an exceptionally low turnout. The organizers of the boycott expressed outrage when people loyal to Feiglin sent text messages saying that the boycott had been canceled."
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
About liberalism: why I use quotation marks
Article on subjectm that I am not very interested in, comes up with the following remarkable statement:
"Classical liberalism was concerned with the freedom to hold and practice beliefs at odds with a public consensus. Modern liberalism uses the power of the state to impose liberal values on institutions it regards as backward. It is the difference between pluralism and anti-clericalism."
My comments:
1. The imposition of "liberal" values can be seen in the intolerant attitudes towards the evangelical Christians in the US. Another case is the attempts by "liberal" groups to impose economic and academic boycotts on Israel, whereas in Israel itself this takes a form of anti-settler sentiment. Ironically, if a liberally-minded person tries to defend the rights of evangelicals or settlers on their views (without actually agreeing with them), he/she is branded a right-winger.
2. You may have noticed that sometimes I use quotation marks to designate the terms whose linguistic usage does not agree with their literal meaning: "liberal", "progressive", "rich/poor" etc. So, for example, in the US "liberal" is used to designate Democrats, often extremely left-wing ones. Yet, for the reason outlined in the previous comment these people frequently are not liberal in the original sense of the word.
Another case when "liberals" are not really liberals is when one refers to their views on the economy. "Liberals" often advocate limiting the market freedom and discriminating against those who are more economically successful. In this contextm the people who do hold liberal economic views are referred to as "neo-liberals" (or, in an extreme case, "libertarians".) In fact, those who are called "liberals", should be really named "neo-communists" (no offence intended - simple statement of ideology.)
The subject, that goes beyond the theme of this post, is whether one can forgo the economic liberalism, but preserve the liberal freedoms in the other areas of life (freedom of speech, freedom of gatherings etc.) Marx and Lenin would certainly disagree.
"Classical liberalism was concerned with the freedom to hold and practice beliefs at odds with a public consensus. Modern liberalism uses the power of the state to impose liberal values on institutions it regards as backward. It is the difference between pluralism and anti-clericalism."
My comments:
1. The imposition of "liberal" values can be seen in the intolerant attitudes towards the evangelical Christians in the US. Another case is the attempts by "liberal" groups to impose economic and academic boycotts on Israel, whereas in Israel itself this takes a form of anti-settler sentiment. Ironically, if a liberally-minded person tries to defend the rights of evangelicals or settlers on their views (without actually agreeing with them), he/she is branded a right-winger.
2. You may have noticed that sometimes I use quotation marks to designate the terms whose linguistic usage does not agree with their literal meaning: "liberal", "progressive", "rich/poor" etc. So, for example, in the US "liberal" is used to designate Democrats, often extremely left-wing ones. Yet, for the reason outlined in the previous comment these people frequently are not liberal in the original sense of the word.
Another case when "liberals" are not really liberals is when one refers to their views on the economy. "Liberals" often advocate limiting the market freedom and discriminating against those who are more economically successful. In this contextm the people who do hold liberal economic views are referred to as "neo-liberals" (or, in an extreme case, "libertarians".) In fact, those who are called "liberals", should be really named "neo-communists" (no offence intended - simple statement of ideology.)
The subject, that goes beyond the theme of this post, is whether one can forgo the economic liberalism, but preserve the liberal freedoms in the other areas of life (freedom of speech, freedom of gatherings etc.) Marx and Lenin would certainly disagree.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Dating, War and Dr. Strangelove
I discussed recently dating from the point of view of market strategy, and also pointed out the link, where the game theory was applied to the same model. These things are more than a joke: once upon a time the game theory was deciding the fate of the World: it was behind the American (and perhaps also Soviet) strategy during the Cold War era.
This article discusses how game theory led to the Cold War episode, known as "Operation Gian Lance":
"Nixon's madman pose and Giant Lance were based on game theory, a branch of mathematics that uses simple calculations and rigorous logic to help understand how people make choices — like whether to surge ahead in traffic or whether to respond to a military provocation with a strike of one's own. The most famous example in the field is the Prisoner's Dilemma: If two criminal suspects are held in separate cells, should they keep mum or rat each other out? (Answer: They should keep quiet, but as self-interested actors, what they will do is betray each other and both go to jail.) In the Cold War, the "games" were much more complicated simulations of war and bargaining: Would the Soviets be more likely to attack Western Europe if we kept missiles there or if we didn't?
Kissinger had studied game theory as a young academic and strategic theorist at Harvard. In the early '60s, he was part of a group of World War II veterans who became the oracles or "whiz kids" of the nuclear age. Working at newly formed institutes and think tanks, like the RAND Corporation, they preached that the proper way to deal with the existence of nuclear weapons wasn't to act as if the situation was so grave that one couldn't even discuss using them; it was to figure out how to use them most effectively. This was the attitude mocked by Stanley Kubrik in Dr. Strangelove, in which RAND appears thinly disguised as the Bland Corporation."
This article discusses how game theory led to the Cold War episode, known as "Operation Gian Lance":
"Nixon's madman pose and Giant Lance were based on game theory, a branch of mathematics that uses simple calculations and rigorous logic to help understand how people make choices — like whether to surge ahead in traffic or whether to respond to a military provocation with a strike of one's own. The most famous example in the field is the Prisoner's Dilemma: If two criminal suspects are held in separate cells, should they keep mum or rat each other out? (Answer: They should keep quiet, but as self-interested actors, what they will do is betray each other and both go to jail.) In the Cold War, the "games" were much more complicated simulations of war and bargaining: Would the Soviets be more likely to attack Western Europe if we kept missiles there or if we didn't?
Kissinger had studied game theory as a young academic and strategic theorist at Harvard. In the early '60s, he was part of a group of World War II veterans who became the oracles or "whiz kids" of the nuclear age. Working at newly formed institutes and think tanks, like the RAND Corporation, they preached that the proper way to deal with the existence of nuclear weapons wasn't to act as if the situation was so grave that one couldn't even discuss using them; it was to figure out how to use them most effectively. This was the attitude mocked by Stanley Kubrik in Dr. Strangelove, in which RAND appears thinly disguised as the Bland Corporation."
Absurd face of political correctness
Loves of absurd will appreciate the opening sentence of this article:
"Richard Nixon was many things — crafty, criminal, self-pitying, vengeful, paranoid. But gay?"
Any pretense of political correctness is washed away by putting in the same row: "crafty, criminal, self-pitying, vengeful, paranoid, gay". The double irony is that Nixon, a Republican, is usually the target of the "progressive" left, which pretends to be the great supporter of sexual minorities.
Finally, the extra level of absurdity is provided by the uniform across the political spectrum vilification of Nixon by the Americans: Yes, he might have been a crook... yet, these very Americans twice elected him the president. He won 1972 election by a landslide, even though the public was already aware of the Watergate scandal. In addition, many of the Nixon's achievements as a US president are things, without which one cannot imagine modern America (for good or for bad):
- first nuclear disarmament negotiations with Soviet Union (one of the treaties concluded, Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, lasted till George W. Bush withdrew from it in 2002)
- the end of the Vietnam war,
- establishing relationship with China (imagine that once upon a time the goods "made in China" were not present in American stores)
- first true demonstration of the US commitment to Israel security during 1793 Yom Kippour war
- dealing with the economic crisis and high inflation of the early 70s and abolishing the gold standard (the former is a very contemporary topic, the latter is a favorite subject of the Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul)
- introducing first ever in the US environmental regulations
- promoting desegregation of schools and affirmative action
"How can one evaluate such an idiosyncratic president, so brilliant and so morally lacking?"
"Richard Nixon was many things — crafty, criminal, self-pitying, vengeful, paranoid. But gay?"
Any pretense of political correctness is washed away by putting in the same row: "crafty, criminal, self-pitying, vengeful, paranoid, gay". The double irony is that Nixon, a Republican, is usually the target of the "progressive" left, which pretends to be the great supporter of sexual minorities.
Finally, the extra level of absurdity is provided by the uniform across the political spectrum vilification of Nixon by the Americans: Yes, he might have been a crook... yet, these very Americans twice elected him the president. He won 1972 election by a landslide, even though the public was already aware of the Watergate scandal. In addition, many of the Nixon's achievements as a US president are things, without which one cannot imagine modern America (for good or for bad):
- first nuclear disarmament negotiations with Soviet Union (one of the treaties concluded, Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, lasted till George W. Bush withdrew from it in 2002)
- the end of the Vietnam war,
- establishing relationship with China (imagine that once upon a time the goods "made in China" were not present in American stores)
- first true demonstration of the US commitment to Israel security during 1793 Yom Kippour war
- dealing with the economic crisis and high inflation of the early 70s and abolishing the gold standard (the former is a very contemporary topic, the latter is a favorite subject of the Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul)
- introducing first ever in the US environmental regulations
- promoting desegregation of schools and affirmative action
"How can one evaluate such an idiosyncratic president, so brilliant and so morally lacking?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)