David Broder is brilliant!

Proof is here.

This esteemed columnist must not be allowed to stop writing for the Washington Post.


posted by Quiddity at 1/07/2010 08:09:00 PM

A decade of no job growth:

Remember this?

Bush Supports Shift of Jobs Overseas

The loss of work to other countries, while painful in the short term, will enrich the economy eventually, his report to Congress says.

February 10, 2004

WASHINGTON — The movement of American factory jobs and white-collar work to other countries is part of a positive transformation that will enrich the U.S. economy over time, even if it causes short-term pain and dislocation, the Bush administration said Monday.

The embrace of foreign outsourcing, an accelerating trend that has contributed to U.S. job losses in recent years and has become an issue in the 2004 elections, is contained in the president's annual report to Congress on the health of the economy.

"Outsourcing is just a new way of doing international trade," said N. Gregory Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisors, which prepared the report. "More things are tradable than were tradable in the past. And that's a good thing."

The report, which predicts that the nation will reverse a three-year employment slide by creating 2.6 million jobs in 2004, is part of a weeklong effort by the administration to highlight signs that the recovery is picking up speed. Bush's economic stewardship has become a central issue in the presidential campaign, and the White House is eager to demonstrate that his policies are producing results.

In terms of raw numbers, a growing population will result in more jobs. But the last decade had that growth offset with job losses from outsourcing/importing (referenced in the Bush report above), for a net of zero. An unprecedented result.

But the U.S. economy has been "enriched" anyway. Right?


posted by Quiddity at 1/07/2010 10:54:00 AM

You cannot trust Jim Manzi:

Manzi recently penned a conservative/libertarian economic manifesto* which, in my reading, was unpersuasive. But it turns out that Manzi is also dishonest! Check out Jonathan Chait's takedown.

* - In the new journal, National Affairs, which David Broder likes.

UPDATE: Jim Manzi (apparently, can't be 100% sure) replies in comments that he has a rejoinder to Chait here.


posted by Quiddity at 1/06/2010 06:23:00 AM

Yemen:

It's 25% larger than California.

Always looks kinda small when shown on the map, probably because it's dwarfed by Saudi Arabia. And it's near the equator (at about 15º) which in a Mercator projection, reduces its apparent size.


posted by Quiddity at 1/06/2010 04:58:00 AM

How about using your senses?

Rod Dreher has a post at his new blog on the novel ""36 Arguments for the Existence of God", which is more complicated and interesting than the title might suggest. Rod expands upon the book, the author, and his own views. Of interest is this that he wrote:

The title made me reflect on how I've never been able to take arguments for God's existence seriously. As an undergraduate philosophy minor, I ought to have mastered at least the basic arguments enough to know why I didn't believe in them. What happened to me was that I read Kierkegaard, who convinced me that trying to demonstrate God's existence logically was pointless. Even if you could construct an airtight logical proof of His existence, if someone was determined not to believe, he could always find a way out of it.

Okay then.

But why are so many people interested in "logically" demonstrating God's existence? Perhaps it allows for the following argument:

• It'd be nice to logically demonstrate God's existence.
• But it can't be done (either due to our mental limitations or logic's dependence on language, which is inadequate to the task).
• So leave me alone with my belief.

Kant noodled in these waters:

Kant argues that the concept of God is in any case not the concept of one particular object of sense among others but rather an "object of pure thought", of something that by definition exists outside the field of experience and of nature. With regard to unicorns, we can specify how we could determine that unicorns exist, i.e., what spatio-temporal experience of them would look like. With regard to the concept of God, there is no way for us to know it as existing in the only legitimate and meaningful way we know other objects as existing. We cannot even determine "the possibility of any existence beyond that known in and through experience"

Wait a minute. For unicorns, we know what spatio-temporal experience of them would look like.

Similarly, for God, we know what a spatio-temporal experience would look like. It's even present in the Hebrew Bible, where Elijah sets up an empirical test on Mt. Carmel (1 Kings 18).

Why not walk away from the sterile notions of logical proof and say that proof of God's existence could be established by, say, having someone pray over a glass of water and if it freezes, then you've got a data point in your favor? The failure of those who believe to accept the protocols of science to establish a significant fact about the universe is puzzling.


posted by Quiddity at 1/06/2010 03:52:00 AM

A good read:

The New York Times has a short essay about dinoflagellates. Strange organisms, in some cases with DNA that's different in composition and organization from all other life forms.


posted by Quiddity at 1/06/2010 03:13:00 AM

Oliphant does Giles:

Current cartoon (dated 4 Jan 2010), featuring a member of the family.

Oddly, no acknowledgment (e.g. "Apologies to ...).


posted by Quiddity at 1/05/2010 04:25:00 AM

The reason:

Over at TPM, this report:

GOP House Candidate: Fight Against Democrats Bigger Than Fight Against Terrorism

Allen Quist, a Republican candidate seeking the nomination to go up against Rep. Tim Walz (D-MN), has made a serious pronouncement: That the political battle against the Democrats is the defining fight of this generation, even greater than the fight against terrorism. (...)

"... I, like you, have seen that our country is being destroyed. I mean, this is -- every generation has had to fight the fight for freedom. This is our fight. And this is our time. This is it. Terrorism, yes -- but that's not the big battle. The big battle is in D.C., with the radicals. They aren't liberals, they're radicals. Obama, Pelosi, Walz -- they're not liberals, they're radicals. They are destroying our country. And people all over are figuring that out."

What's interesting are two remarks in the comments thread:

kenga

"THE NEW SHERIFF IS A"

I would really like to believe that's not at the root of this movement, but I can't bring myself to. If anyone has evidence to the contrary ... I would really like to hear it.

Forrest

I'm sad to say I agree with you Kenga. I've tried to be open minded about Obama's opposition, and I've tried to make sense of their points of view.

I just don't see any legitimate reason for their intense hatred of him. He has barely even DONE anything, and certainly nothing worthy of hatred. On the national level, things are same to better regarding the economy, national defense, the environment, etc. I'm sure locally some people are much worse off, and some are much better off, but on average things appear to be slowly improving - despite intense opposition from the GOP.

I guess you could point to the attempted bombing on Christmas to say things are worse, but we all know that terrorists will continue to target the US regardless of policies or which party is in the White House. Besides, they were screaming about their freedoms being taken away in February for crying out loud.

So, given a lack of tangible, factual evidence upon which to base their claims of lost freedoms, what other explanation is there?

A mostly black guy with a terrorist's name who spent part of his childhood in a Muslim country and comes from Hawaii (which, frankly, is barely a state anyway) was elected President. In THEIR America. They refuse to believe it...that so many Americans can think so differently than they do. We all must be blind to the clear fact that he's a Mujahid hell-bent on destroying our democracy. Just as soon as he gets off the golf course that is.

Maybe if he was a white guy named Obama, or a black guy named Bob Smith, it wouldn't be so bad. But you have racial and xenophobic fears wrapped into one guy, and they're scared.

posted by Quiddity at 1/04/2010 10:47:00 PM

"attempted Christmas Day massacre"

That's how Chris Wallace, on Fox News Sunday, characterized the underpants bomber attempt.

"massacre" is generally thought to be the killing of many people in a close quarters fighting scenario. It's not appropriate for a bomb plot. But Wallace likes the word "massacre" because it sounds scary.


posted by Quiddity at 1/03/2010 08:21:00 AM

Is that really the reason?

In an op-ed about science and the public arena, there is this:

The scientific response to creationists has long been to cite the extensive evidence for evolution. In book after book, scientists have explained how DNA, fossil, anatomical and other evidence indisputably shows the interrelatedness of all species. Further, they have refuted creationist claims that evolution cannot explain the complexity of the eye or the intricacy of the bacterial flagellum. Yet such down-in-the-weeds messages probably miss most of the public -- polls repeatedly show that a large portion of Americans have doubts about evolution.

For all these efforts, why haven't scientists made any inroads? It's because at its core, the objection to evolution isn't about science at all, but about perceived threats to faith and moral values. The only way to defuse the conflict is to assuage these fundamental fears. Yet this drags many scientists out of their comfort zone: They're not priests or theologians and don't know how to sound like them. Many refuse to try; others go to the opposite extreme of advocating vociferous and confrontational atheism.

Ironically, to increase support for the teaching of evolution, scientists must join forces with -- and show more understanding of -- religion. Scientists who are believers also need to be more vocal about how they reconcile science and faith.

"Many Christians, including fundamentalists, can accept evolution as long as it is not attached to the view that life has no purpose," Karl Giberson, a Christian physicist and the author of "Saving Darwin: How to Be a Christian and Believe in Evolution," told me recently. "Human life has value, and any scientific theory that even appears to deny this central religious affirmation will alienate people of faith and create opportunity for those who would rally believers against evolution."

While the "life has no purpose" aspect of evolution may bother some, there could be another reason for rejecting evolution.

Saint Paul.

His epistles, especially Romans, make theological claims about Jesus based on the fall of Adam. Without Adam, huge portions of Pauline theology become meaningless.

The challenge of science is to reconcile evolution with the notion that Adam existed as a real person. That, of course, cannot be done.


posted by Quiddity at 1/02/2010 02:05:00 AM

This just in:

Nothing wrong with Rush Limbaugh's heart.

posted by Quiddity at 1/01/2010 06:38:00 PM

Don't despair!

From the Christian Science Monitor:

A New Year’s resolution: Don’t accept US decline

The common conclusion is that the American sun has set, much like the end of the British, Ottoman, and Roman empires.

That’s, well, nonsense. (...)

Corporate spending on R&D may have slowed, but peek inside engineering schools and home offices. Innovation is humming. The Wall Street Journal reported recently a surge in “tinkering” as plummeting prices on materials and equipment allow individuals to turn their ideas into inventions. Engineering schools are reporting more students wanting to do hands-on work. “Hackerspaces,” where tinkerers can share ideas and tools, are blossoming across the country.

Financial upheaval in the late 19th century sparked a golden age of independent inventors in the US. Will that happen again?

It could be that individuals – as opposed to institutions – lead the way into the next decade. That wouldn’t be surprising. Americans are renowned for their can-do attitude and resourcefulness, and the Internet gives them more voice and opportunity. (...)

Many jobless Americans are doing their utmost to take responsibility for their lives. A December New York Times/CBS poll of unemployed adults found that over 40 percent had moved or were considering moving to find work. Meanwhile, 44 percent have pursued job retraining or other education. Online learning is growing, making it easier for Americans to improve their skills.

So, Americans will use "online learning" to "tinker" with cheap gadgets, and this will make the country predominant over the rest of the world?


posted by Quiddity at 1/01/2010 04:39:00 PM