lloydtown 

Ailment from Running

I ran on sore feet today. I bought a couple of arch supports a week ago, and have now used them three times. My sore feet have obviously not cleared up. Assuming my problem is the plantar fascia, I will try a bit more support (home made arch strapping, a heel pad) and keep down the mileage I am attempting. There still may be a doctor's visit in my future.

Once again it is interesting how much information is available on the Internet--much of it quite useful.

This all helps me realize why people who want this kind of exercise might switch to an elliptical machine.

Hitchens on ... History

Christopher HItchens criticizes Francis Fukuyama's book, which I probably won't read (I never got around to reading The Last Man and the End of History).

Apparently, Fukuyama argues that the neo-cons who have been very influential in the Bush Administration have been driven by ideology, a belief that history can be speeded up in specific ways, and have therefore ignored reality. In fact, he apparently argues, they have acted as though there is really no reason to study such things as local conditions in Iraq, the cast of characters or major groups, or identify trustworthy people who speak the relevant languages.

How did 9/11 change things? By putting the neo-cons closer to the driver's seat than they had been before. Fukuyama attributes to the neo-cons the following view:

"...that the 'root cause' of terrorism lay in the Middle East's lack of democracy, that the United States had both the wisdom and the ability to fix this problem and that democracy would come quickly and painlessly to Iraq."

Hitchens says this is not "even half-true" as a summary of the neo-con position.

It wasn't that the Middle East "lacked democracy" so much that one of its keystone states was dominated by an unstable and destabilizing dictatorship led by a psychopath. And it wasn't any illusion about the speed and ease of a transition so much as the conviction that any change would be an improvement.

The three questions that anyone developing second thoughts about the Iraq conflict must answer are these: Was the George H.W. Bush administration right to confirm Saddam Hussein in power after his eviction from Kuwait in 1991? Is it right to say that we had acquired a responsibility for Iraq, given past mistaken interventions and given the great moral question raised by the imposition of sanctions? And is it the case that another confrontation with Saddam was inevitable; those answering "yes" thus being implicitly right in saying that we, not he, should choose the timing of it? Fukuyama does not even mention these considerations. Instead, by his slack use of terms like "magnet," he concedes to the fanatics and beheaders the claim that they are a response to American blunders and excesses.

Surely the huge spasm of Islamist hysteria over caricatures published in Copenhagen shows that there is no possible Western insurance against doing something that will inflame jihadists? The sheer audacity and evil of destroying the shrine of the 12th imam is part of an inter-Muslim civil war that had begun long before the forces of al-Qaida decided to exploit that war and also to export it to non-Muslim soil. Yes, we did indeed underestimate the ferocity and ruthlessness of the jihadists in Iraq. Where, one might inquire, have we not underestimated those forces and their virulence? (We are currently underestimating them in Nigeria, for example, which is plainly next on the Bin Laden hit list and about which I have been boring on ever since Bin Laden was good enough to warn us in the fall of 2004.)

Canada Doesn't Suck in Winter Games

To make this perfect, I'll try to find something from the National Post, whose editorial stance has been summed up as "Canada Sucks." The paper has also emphasized Olympic Games--especially in the summer--as proof of our mediocrity--especially in comparison to the U.S.

Earlier I did some calculations on Winter Games 2002 and Summer Games 2004. I argued that we did about as one would expect in comparison to the U.S. (10% of medals, matching 10% of the population) in the Summer, a bit better than expected in Winter. The country that was kicking our butts (in the summer) was Australia.

Summer 2004: Finals: Canada 3 Gold, 12 total; U.S. 35/103. We're a bit under 10% in Golds; a bit over in total. Australia, with two-thirds of Canada's population: 49 medals, 17 of them gold. Amazing.

2002 Winter Games, Salt Lake City: US 34 medals, 10 Gold; Canada 17, 7 Gold (50% overall, 70% Golds); Australia 2 Golds only.

Total 2002 Winter, 2004 Summer: USA 137 medals, 45 Gold; Canada 29 medals, 10 Gold: more than 25% total, 22.5% Golds. Australia 51 total, 19 Gold: say 40% of the US total, close to half of the golds.

Now add 2006 Winter: USA 25 medals, 9 gold; Canada 24 medals, 7 gold. Not far from: a tie. Australia 2 medals, 1 gold.

New totals, 2002, 2004, 2006:

USA 162 medals, 54 gold; Canada 53 medals, 17 gold (about 33% of the medals and the golds); Australia 53 medals, 20 golds (a bit better than Canada, which gets more balanced results between summer and winter).

Or just stick to 2004, 2006: one Summer, one Winter.

USA 128/44; Canada 36/10; Australia 51/18. Canada won 28% of the US medals, 23% of the golds; Australia, hardly winning anything in Winter, an amazing 40% and 41%.

Of course, much of Canada is in mourning because the men's hockey team finished out of the medals. Somehow the overall great performance, dominated by women, including Cindy Klassen and Clara Hughes making history, doesn't cut it by comparison.

A few other countries, 2004 and 2006 combined:

Russia 92 summer + 22 winter: 114 total; 27 + 8 = 35 golds.
Germany 48 + 29 = 77 total; 14 + 11 = 25 golds.
China 63 + 11 = 74 total; 32 + 2 = 34 golds.
Austria, better in winter: 23 in 06, 7 in 04 = 30 total; 9 + 2 = 11 golds.
Japan, only one gold in 06: totals 38/17.

TR as seen by a Brit

Lord Grey of Fallodon got to know Theodore Roosevelt slightly in the days shortly before World War I. (Twenty-Five Years, Vol. II).

pp. 135-6: November 1912: Grey wrote to TR, expressing concern at news that TR had been shot, but had been able to go ahead and give a speech anyway. (An assassination attempt, not an unfortunate shooting by a dear friend, er, acquaintance).

TR:

[blockquote]I am a little amused, my dear fellow, at your saying that the account of the shooting stirred you with a curiosity to know whether, if the experience had been yours, you would "have had the nerve to make the speech," and whether your "body would have proved as healthy.".... [after reassuring Grey that he would have done fine] Modern civilization is undoubtedly somewhat soft, and the average political orator or party leader, the average broker or banker or factory owner, at least when he is past middle age, is apt to be soft--I mean both mentally and physically--and such a man accepts being shot as a frightful and unheard-of calamity, and feels very sorry for himself and thinks only of himself, and not of the work on which he is engaged or of his duty to others, or indeed of his real self-respect. But a good soldier or sailor, or, for the matter of that, even a civilian accustomed to hard and hazardous pursuits, a deep-sea fisherman, or railwayman, or cowboy, or lumber-jack, or miner, would normally act as I acted without thinking anything about it. I believe half the men in my regiment at the least would have acted just as I acted.[/blockquote]

The end of this passage brings to mind an old Paul Lynde joke: Q: How many men are there are on a football team? A: About half.

The strange thing is to see this bright, educated man, a once and future president, concerned to demonstrate that he has the physical courage of a fairly typical stevedore.

pp. 90-91: "The popular impression of Roosevelt conveyed by the Press was that of a very important and striking personality; but it was nevertheless in one respect very inadequate. He was renowned as a man of action; public opinion was fascinated by this quality, and it was not so generally recognized that he was also remarkable as a man of reading and knowledge....Roosevelt could be rough, and he was always ready, and his manner incontroversy was that of a fighter. There was not much of the patience of Job, there was a great deal of the war-horse rejoicing in his strength and saying "Ha, ha" among the trumpets....in controversy he would take a short cut to his point....[Asked whether major tax increases would goahead in the U.S. as they had in Britain]: "It would depend upon whether a Judge of the Supreme Court came down heads or tails."

Some vivid details. TR was bright and brave; but somehow he always threatened to shade into something a bit ridiculous. He is known for his pithy aphorisms; apparently even he thought they gave an inadequate sense of his thinking about things. But he did enjoy the pithy remark--intended, as Grey suggests, as an act of war. "The Presidency is a bully pulpit." "Speak softy, and carry a big stick." It is so tempting for a president to fall in love with the pulpit, shout and brag, and then admit that he has only a small stick to threaten anyone with.

Apparently TR didn't like the fact that the Teddy bear, with its glassy eyes, was named after him; but again, there is that slighly laughable possibility.

Maxims based on war

Lord Grey of Fallodon, Twenty-Five Years, Vol. II, p. 52 (on World War I):

More than one true thing may be said about the causes of the war, but the statement that comprises most truth is that militarism and the armaments inseparable from it made war inevitable. Armaments were intended to produce a sense of security in each nation--that was the justification put forward in defence of them. What they really did was to produce fear in everybody. Fear causes suspicion and hatred; it is hardly too much to say that, between nations, it stimulates all that is bad and depresses all that is good.

1) The warfare among the different groups of the conquerors....The stronger and more ambitious kings secured superiority over neighboring kingdoms.

2) The church....

3) These two forces, however, failed to accomplish unity, until the third, the pressure of a common enemy, was applied. Toward the close of the eighth century the Danes began to invade the country from the sea.

Glucosamine and Arthritis

Does glucosamine help humans with arthritis pain, as it seems to help dogs?

From the Globe and Mail:

For a majority of study participants, who suffered from mild pain, the two supplements seemed to be no more effective than a placebo.

However, patients with moderate to severe symptoms reported significant pain relief in the 24-week trial. About 79 per cent of patients who took both supplements reported an improvement in their condition. That's even better than the results from a prescription drug; 69 per cent of patients in that category who took celecoxib (known by the brand name Celebrex) said they had a significant reduction in pain. (About 54 per cent of those receiving the placebo claimed improvement.)

At first glance, the study seems to suggest the supplements provide the most benefit to those who are in the most pain. But the researchers, led by Daniel Clegg of the University of Utah, caution that there were just too few patients in this category to draw reliable conclusions. Out of a total 1,583 initial participants, only 72 patients in the moderate- to severe-pain group received both supplements. “From a statistical standpoint . . . the numbers just aren't there,” Dr. Clegg told a telephone news conference.

Updates on Iraq

AP: "The number of Iraqi army battalions judged capable of fighting the insurgency without U.S. help has slipped from one to zero since September, Pentagon officials said Friday." (Thanks to Laura Rozen).

Of course, the article goes on to give some good news:

But the number of Iraqi battalions capable of leading the battle, with U.S. troops in a support role, has grown by nearly 50%, from 36 to 53, Air Force Lt. Gen. Gene Renuart said, and the number engaged in combat has increased 11%, from 88 to 98.

The total number of Iraqi security forces is now about 232,000, said Peter Rodman, an assistant secretary of Defense who briefed reporters with Renuart.

Bush and Iran

Fred Kaplan:

[blockquote]The thing is, Iranian leaders really do pay attention to what American officials say. Kenneth Pollack tells an instructive story in his book, The Persian Puzzle: The Conflict Between Iran and America. Shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Bush officials started meeting with Iranian officials. The two countries shared an interest in overthrowing the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, and they took cooperative steps toward that common goal; two decades of mutual hostility began to melt away. Then, in January 2002, President Bush delivered his State of the Union Address—linking Iran with Iraq and North Korea as an "axis of evil"—and the Iranians instantly ended all talks. More than that, the Western-leaning factions within the Iranian regime were delegitimized and crushed.[/blockquote]

Was there ever any kind of strategy, or was it plain stupidity? I guess they thought they were cleverly putting Iraq--the only one of the three they were planning to invade--right in the middle. Holy cow--I think I'm reading between the lines.

Overview of U.S. Politics, cont'd

Rationales for Iraq war:

#1. We went to war to protect Americans agains WMDs and links to al Qaeda, whether either of these exist or not, being on the safe side; what about the Democrats?
#2. We want to spread democracy everywhere, whether it makes sense or not--we'll even scare you by saying you'll never be safe (see again #1) unless we spread democracy everywhere in the world. What about the Democrats?
#3. We love the poor, oppressed Iraqi people. We just love 'em. We don't care how much it costs--we've just got to do something there. What about the Democrats?

All of these points are demagogic and even McCarthyite. They have little to do with winning an actual war on terror. They work best for a "war of choice," where the U.S. was not immediately threatened, so the Bushies can say "we've chosen a war, we've been bold, or arguably reckless and manly (like Texas skiers)--what about the Democrats?"

Of course there have always been "realist" arguments for some of what Bush has done. Condeleeza Rice has said that whatever U.S. and Western policies were in place in the Mid East and Persian Gulf before 9/11, they were not working. The trends were getting worse, not better. More fanaticism (combinations of fundamentalism, violence, and failed states); more threats to the West, more disappointments of hopes that mid-East peoples other than Israelis could enjoy genuine autonomy (not necessarily democracy).

Bush has never given such a sober speech. He has never admitted that certain countries go to the top of the list not because of idealism or love, but because of oil. He has lent some support to the view that Islam itself is a problem--despite his pious talk about a true, loving version of Islam.

I guess my only conclusion is that either McCain or Hillary Clinton would be an improvement. Why is Mickey Kaus, a Democrat, going to vote for McCain? I guess he buys in to at least some of the belief that what is needed is an angry, macho man--even if this person sometimes seems reckless, unpredictable, or crazy.

Overview of U.S. Politics

1. Atrios: not for taxes:

[blockquote]I don't know any "big government liberals" in the sense that Andy [Sullivan] means. I don't know anybody who gets a stiffy at the thought of raising taxes and increasing government spending as a share of GDP just for the hell of it. Liberals I know tend to think there are things government should do and we should, roughly, figure out how to pay for those things, though we're not entirely allergic to deficit spending. When taxes have to go up to cover interest and debt repayment costs no liberals I know are going to go "YAY! HIGHER TAXES! WOO HOOO!"[/blockquote]

For a long time the Left was tarred as idealistic utopians, addicted to ways of doing things no matter what the consequences. I have no real opinion on whether that criticism was ever true, but in any case it's something which has been embraced wholesale by the Right. They have a small government fetish, and that fetish is linked almost entirely to the top marginal federal income tax rate. Liberals have no such corresponding fetish for "big government" even if they tend to be fans of some government programs conservatives like to demonize as being "big government liberalism." No one's going to enjoy sweeping up after Bush's fiscal train wreck.

I wonder if people like Sullivan truly don't understand this, if they're unable to see beyond their own silly worldview, or if they're just full of it.