Alex Jacobson 3.0

May 16, 2005

Stanley Fish gets it wrong

Filed under: Lets do what!? — admin @ 12:35 pm

Stanley Fish attempts to argue that there is no principled way to differentiate between Ward Churchil’s claims that the victims of 9/11 were “little Eichmans” and Larry Summers comments that the preponderane of males in Harvard’s physics department might be partially the result of genetic predispositions. He claims that both sorts of speech are equally permissible from a First Ammendment perspective and that it is inconsistent of the right to condemn Churchill and demand his resignation while at the same time making Larry Summers a free speech martyr.

Fish is largely missing the point. Summers is making a factual claim that may or may not be justified using scientific evidence. See this fabulous debate to betwee Steve Pinker and Elizabeth Spelke to see how such a discussion can proceed. In contrast, Churchill is making a value judgement about America and terrorism that is not per se provable or disprovable. Discussion and evaluation of factual claims are the substance of science and acadamia and it is indeed scandalous that Harvard’s faculty appears unable to engage in it. In contrast, Churchill is infusing facts with value judgements that at odds with those of the people and institutions that employ him. The left has indeed been entirely ok with the politicization of academia. The right has largely stood for the idea that academia should be the province of intellect.

Churchill’s abuse was to shift from intellectual discourse to political discourse and to represent his political discourse as intellectually valid. Summers was making a factual hypothesis ammenable to proof or disproof. The fact that Fish can’t see the difference is indeed part of the problem with academia today, a problem that Ward Churchill so vividly makes apparent.

"Free Muslim Against Terrorism" rally has low turnout. CAIR decides not to show

Filed under: Social Markets — admin @ 11:28 am

Pics here. Lots of details here. The mainstream Muslim organizations stayed away.

Did Newsweek shout fire in a crowded theater?

Filed under: The Enemy is Us — admin @ 11:10 am

Austin Bay describes it as The Press’ Abu Ghraib. Michelle Malkin as “Newsweek Lied. People Died. She quotes the London TImes story

“At least nine people were killed yesterday as a wave of anti-American demonstrations swept the Islamic world from the Gaza Strip to the Java Sea, sparked by a single paragraph in a magazine alleging that US military interrogators had desecrated the Koran.”

A commenter notes on Austin Bay’s post notes

In every other walk of life, professionals are subject to criminal charges if they engage in grossly negligent behavior that results in injury to innocent third parties. Here have we grossly negligent (if not outright malicious, and I’m still not convinced that Newsweek didn’t make up most of this story out of whole cloth) behavior that has resulted in harm to American servicemen in wartime. This is much, much more serious than Rathergate. Newsweek has crossed over the line from ordinary leftist media conceit into Lord Haw Haw / Tokyo Rose territory.

Newsweek falsely reported that US soldiers descrate the Koran at Gitmo and now 15 people are dead as a consequence. Should Newsweek be punished? What is the punishment for shouting fire in a crowded theater?

May 12, 2005

Transhumanism vs Democracy

Filed under: Navel Gazing — admin @ 11:16 am

I’ve been saying this to various friends for a while and Ronald Bailey says it in Reason more concisely:

Politics in the 21st century will cut across the traditional political left/right rift of the last two centuries. Instead, the chief ideological divide will be between transhumanists and bioconservatives/bioluddites.

In the 18th Century, the Framers of the American Constitution debated whether slaves should count in aportioning representation. The slave owners wanted them to count more because it would increase their power. The free states wanted them to count less because property can’t vote. The result was the “three fifths compromise” counting slaves as three-fifths of a whole person. As transhumanism moves forward, we will be reviving this debate. Do de-encephalized clones count in the census? What about clones in general as they will be more likely to share the original’s political preferences? Are sufficiently modified humans still human enough to vote? They may have preferences, but those preferences may be determined by the gadgets implanted into their heads rather than randomly based on environmental factors. Should unmodified humans be voting as they may be obviously stupider than their transformed counterparts?

At a less esoteric level, will be be coercing people to accept certain treatments (in the same way we coerce immunization)? What are the boundaries here? How dangerous is this?

On the other hand, will be be allowing people to undertake arbitratry treatments? How will they be stopped? How do we protect ourselves from the bio-transformative virus produced in our neighbors kitchen? What about their dogs?

May 11, 2005

Big vs Small, Private Sector vs Public Sector, Personal vs Impersonal

Filed under: Navel Gazing — admin @ 4:12 pm

Many people on the left are concerned about Big Business. They worry that individual expression and liberty will get trampled by a corporate bureacuracy intent on self preservation and growth. Many people on the right are concerned about the behavior of Big Government. They worry that indivual expression and liberty will get trampled by government bureacracy intent on self preservation and growth. Entrepreneurs and artists are or should be concerned about both.

On the flip side, there is a lot of value to scale. For example, the quality of produce in my neighborhood has increased dramatically since Whole Foods arrived. Neither cars nor computers would not be available to most people if there were not big corporations and mass markets producing them. It took the might of the US government to stop both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia from spreading misery and death around the world.

In general I am biased in favor of letting individuals negotiate differences among themselves. I am not at all certain that government enforcement of contracts and payments serves anyone. More on this later. In the interim, read this post by Jeff Jarvis about the problems when companies grow. He is responding to this post by Fred Wilson asking whether Google is becoming AOL.

May 8, 2005

MSM Silence on Arab Silence on Genocide

Filed under: Social Markets — admin @ 10:50 pm

Joseph Britt wrote a brillian post over a Belgravia Dispatch.

Friedman doesn’t mention Darfur in this column. By contrast, his fellow Times columnist Nick Kristof writes frequently about Darfur without mentioning any Arab country or government other than Sudan’s. This is a remarkable coincidence, at least to an admitted layman to whom one slaughter looks much like another. Arabs in Darfur seem to use rape as a weapon more often than Arabs from Saudi Arabia or Ramadi, and explosives not as often. But these look like details to me, a case of different people relying on different chapters of The Savage’s Handbook.
I know all the likely rebuttals to this deliberately brutal and inflammatory language. None of them explain the Arab genocide in Darfur; the silence of other Arabs about Arab genocide in Darfur; or the Western media’s silence about Arabs’ silence about Arab genocide in Darfur. Friedman, for example, seems oblivious to the subject. Kristof, who is not, follows the conventional practice of American journalists witnessing something awful. This is to demand that the American government do something about it.
Well, this is fine. We’d all like Washington to put out this particular fire before it burns itself out, and I don’t really object to any of the specific steps Kristof recommends in this case. As a practical matter, though, this habitual treatment of every actual or potential disaster around the world as primarily an American problem is a good way to ensure that actual disasters get worse and potential disasters turn into real ones.

May 5, 2005

Google to offer web cache

Filed under: My Secret Project — admin @ 4:19 pm

Fron CNet:

A beta, or test version, of Web Accelerator was introduced via the Google Labs technology incubation site late Wednesday. The tool, which must be downloaded, will tap into the power of Google’s global computer network and thus help sites load faster, according to the company.

Web Accelerator works by sending URL requests through company servers designated specifically for speeding site downloads. The application also can compress site data before sending it to computers.

Current Email Solution (VAST IMPROVEMENT OVER BEFORE)

Filed under: Lets do what!? — admin @ 3:42 pm
  • CRM114 to filter spam. I wrote a script that grabs all mail saved into teach-mail and teach-spam folders and uses them to improve CRM114. The result has been a 95% drop in inbox spam with less than 1% false positives.
  • All mail goes into my INBOX and stays there. I bcc all outbound mail to myself. I view my mail most recent first. Now regular mail usage is compatible with POP and lots of other mail readers. If a mail needs to be processed then it can be saved into a folder. But following the philosophy of Dave Allen’s Getting Things Done, I only check email when I am ready to process it. Any mail that I can answer quickly I do. Any other mail that requires a larger response gets put on a todo list. Using your inbox as a TODO list is just a recipe for trouble.
  • All bulk messages are delivered to a bulk folder that I can check when I anm ready to read random news broadcast. Email in my INBOX gets presumptive priority. The result is a much lower aggregate interrupt level. I created a cron job that grabs all the from: addresses from a teach-bulk folder and adds them to a buklist. See here for info on how. My procmail filter looks like this
    :0 Whic :$BULKLIST$LOCKEXT
    | (formail -x received: -x X-Envelope-From: -x from: -x sender: -x reply-to: -x
    return-path:| fgrep --quiet --ignore-case --file=$BULKLIST)
    #
    :0 Wa
    AAADailies

    Note: From enumeration appears to be the best way to do this. Custom addressing doesn’t help enough.
  • I set my email client to check for new email ever hour rather than every minute. That is also a vast reduction in distraction.

All of these changes have made me gigantically less distracted and hopefully more productive. Yay!
Update: A sideeffect of a consistent inbox is that I now have things configured so that all from addresses of mail accepted in my INBOX are whitelisted. Note if you use CRM114, you should only whitelist AFTER training.

Sometimes in April: More PC Damage and (argh!) A RALLY!

Filed under: The Enemy is Us — admin @ 3:25 pm

Two nights ago, I attended a showing of Sometimes in April by the AJWS. The movie attempted to dramatize the attempted genocide of the Tutsis by the Hutus in Rwanda in 1994 and the way the world just stood by. The movie was shown in an attempt to galvanize action to stop the ongoing genocide of Blacks by Arabs in the Sudan. But the movie uttely sends the wrong message on this front.

In a testament to PC nonesense, all characters in the film fell into three basic categories, evil males who do nothing rape and kill women, helpless males who can do nothing to stop them, and heroic women who occassionally do. There are no images of heroic men attempting to defend their households from the attackers. There are not even images of Tutsi rebel forces fighting to retake Rwanda from these monsters.

Instead we are invited to view the genocide as being like the rains of April; something that comes unbidden, like the weather. And something that magically departs just as suddently, when the Tutsi rebels announce over a bullhorn that the Tutsis can come out from hiding in the swamp. There is no coverage of the fighting that allowed the Tutsi to take power. The folks who made the movie really want to avoid the notion that bad things happen when good men fail to act and that the action that these good men take sometimes needs to be VIOLENT.

It also images the Tutsis as helpless victims of Rwandan aggresion. It ignores the Tutsi massacre of 300,000 Hutus in 1972 in neighboring Burundi (also Hutus killed 100,00 Tutsis in Rwanda over the period from 1955-1965) and the fact that the UN had just escorted the main Tutsi force to the center of the capital. There was real fear on both sides. (For killing history see here).

The film covered the widespread rapes that the Hutu militias perpetrated on women without showing any of it. It did show some of the killing of women and girls. At the same time it shows little of the killing of men and boys. There are two possibilities here. Either the man and boys ran away leaving the women and girls alone to face the militias or they were simply killed first. If the former, the movie fails to confront the possiblity that some concept of male honor is an important part in the maintenance of civil society. If the later, perhaps it would have been better if all Rwandan were armed. Either way, it is simply that the men and boys who were killed prior to the rapes, then what is being shown is a cruel reprise of the joke : “world coming to an end. women and children hardest hit!”

The movie attempts to dramatise the fecklessness of the US, showing decision makers trying to avoid a repeat of Mogadishu. Coverage of the US response centers on the Prudence Bushnell, the heroic female Deputy Assistant Sec. State for Africa. She becomes increasingly alarmed at the genocide, repeatedly tries to persuade male US policy makers to act, and is rebuffed by them. In one scene, she is exhorting a US commander to shut down the Rwandan radio station goading the Hutu militias to greater levels of violence. He responds “Radio doesn’t kill people. People kill people” and then goes on to talk about freedom of speech. She is exasperated by the refusal of anyone to act. But we never see her doing the obvious alternative, COMPETITION. Perhaps it is too MALE, but perhaps we could have arranged to have the US broadcast radio into Rwanda with a competing message of peace and hope. Perhaps its just that Democracts prefer regulation to competition.

The movie neglects to cover the real background of domestict liberals and leftists rampant opposition to any US military action and de facto complicity in the
genocides in Vietnam and Cambodia perpetrated after the US departed South East Asia. What makes Rwanda a better genocide to cover than Cambodia and Vietnam in the 1970’s or Iraq in the 1980’s? Perhaps that it lets the left off the hook in allowing these prior genocides to happen. The movie manages to be relatively silent about the fact that the UN troops left without firing a shot in defense of the Tutsis that they had committed to protect and the fact that the French were actively supporting and providing arms to the Hutus.

At the end of the day, we must confront the fact that sometime the only way to stop bad men is through violence. Men who are willing to rape and kill for their own ends will not be stopped by words or arm bands. They will be stopped by force.

And that gets me to the current context. It is Yom Hashoah, Holocaust Remembrance Day. The AJWS site says:

This month we commemorate Yom Hashoah and remember the consequences of inaction by the international community in the face of genocide. We remember and we still cannot, nor will we ever, comprehend how the world looked on as six million of us were gassed, tortured, displaced, starved and worked to death.

We vowed, “never again!” But is this declaration to be reserved for Jews alone? Jews must be the guardians of this call for action, highly sensitive and responsive to all attempts by any people to annihilate another people. The world stood idly by 60 years ago, and again as massacres unfolded in Cambodia, Rwanda, and now Sudan.

I fully support the sentiments in this text. I plan to attend to the rally scheduled for 4:30PM this Sunday in Central Park (on Cherry Hill by Strawberry Fields) to raise awareness of the ongoing genocide in Darfur, Sudan. According to the email

The rally is being coordinated by students from Yeshiva University (YU), with participation by students from Columbia, NYU, Rutgers, Harvard, and Georgetown. Among the speakers will be Ruth Messinger, President and Executive Director of the American Jewish World Service, Yahya M. Osman, general secretary, Darfur Rehab Project, Inc, who lost six members of his family to the Sudan genocide in 2004, and human rights activists Simon Dang and Maria Sliwa. There will be elected officials present as well. Sponsoring organizations include Human Rights First, ADL, AJWS and the Anti-Slavery Group.

I hope this rally will both raise awareness of the ongoing genocide and raise recognition that the way these sorts of things get stopped is by violence. The silence of many on the left about the prior ongoing killing and genocide in Afghanistan and Iraq that was stopped only by the US military is alarming. The possibility that the US may equip rebels to fight the Sudanese government gives me hope. I’d also like the US to grow the military sufficiently so that we have the resources to impose no fly zones on the Sudan. But again, the domestic liberals can’t stand any money spent on the military. They voted for John Kerry’s “fire houses in the US and not Iraq.” But I have hope that awareness of this tragedy will straighten them out.

Terrorism in Manhattan. Winer Hypocricy

Filed under: War Politics — admin @ 1:24 pm

From NY1

Two novelty grenades filled with gunpowder exploded outside the British Consulate in Midtown early Thursday morning, causing minor damage but no injuries. Police do not have any suspects or a motive but say there is no evidence linking the blasts to national elections underway in Britain.

Yesterday, I saw that Dave Winer had posted :

Sure we led the war effort in Iraq, but Blair was right there providing political cover for Bush, the whole way. If he hadn’t maybe Bush wouldn’t have gotten re-elected. So why wasn’t there (or was there?) an effective campaign to deny Blair re-election for what he did in the war, the lies he told? Or do the British think somehow that Bush was lying and Blair wasn’t, because if you do, I got a bridge I want to tell you about. Permanent link to this item in the archive.

So Dave is clearly angry with Bush and Blair. I’d like a better sense of what lies he thinks they told and whether or not the outcome was worth it e.g. freedom and elections in Iraq. I am curious because later on in the same set of posts he says:

Hats off to the Internet for bringing us the girl band from Afghanistan, they’re hip, they’re girls, and they wear Burkas! Wow.

So I wonder if he is willing to express any actual gratitude to Bush and Blair for toppling the Taliban and making this girl band possible. Or is it all just churlishness?

The reason why I connect the manhattan “terrorism” with Dave Winer is that the blinding anger at Bush and Blair is a characteristic feature of the left. This type of action, novelty grenades, seems less like the work of sophisticated international terrorists and more like the work of someone local with an ax to grind who wants to make a statement. Given all the left paraphenalia advocating assasinating Bush, this is perhaps an obvious next step.

Note, I am not making an accusation here. Just stating an alternative to the Al Queada theory that appears to be floating around elsewhere.

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress