lloydtown 

Search Engine is Working!

I'm still not sure how to get more than one page of hits, but things are looking a lot cooler.

Raptors: There's Always Next Year?

The Raptors have won a couple on the road. The victory over New Jersey was sweet; the Raptors' former star, Vince Carter, looked merely human.

Chris Bosh has become the third-youngest player ever to reach 1000 rebounds. His personal best point total in a game continues to inch up toward 30.

Rafer Alston and Donyell Marshall continue to play well. Jalen Rose plays well off the bench, and they get good contributions from a large number of players.

On the other hand, nothing was done by the trading deadline. Some players were hoping to leave--maybe especially Eric Williams. Probably many players were hoping for some improvement. The abysmal Atlantic Division is actually still within sight, but now other teams in the Division have improved while the Raptors have not.

Politics in Iraq

We're slowly getting a better sense of the case of characters.

Yahoo here, NYT here, LAT here.

Ibrahim al-Jaafari has been chosen as the preferred candidate for Prime Minister of the United Iraqi Alliance, the largest Shiite group in the recent election, which won about 51% of the seats in the new Assembly.

Dr. Jaafari, a physician, is the long-time leader of the Dawa Party, which is conspicuous for its commitment to basing law and politics on Sharia or Islamic law--or at least, ensuring that they are not inconsistent. Jaafari thus comes to sight as more of a "fundamentalist" than Ahmed Chalabi, who was also part of the Alliance, or Ayad Allawi, who was Interim Prime Minister, and whose own group won only about 15% of the vote.

Allawi says he will still campaign to be chosen Prime Minister under the new rules. First a President and two Vice-Presidents must be chosen by a two-thirds vote of the Assembly. Then these three individuals choose a Prime Minister--presumably one who can command a majority of the votes in the Assembly.

All three of these Shiite individuals, like many Kurdish leaders, have impeccable "anti-Saddam" credentials. There is some disagreement among them as to whether to de-Baathificize or not (Allawi perhaps being the most strongly opposed). Jaafari seems the most pious, or fundamentalist, or pro-Iran of the three. For one period in his life (during the Iran-Iraq war), he led raids against Iraqi forces from bases inside Iran.

Even before the election, he was evasive as to the extent to which he thinks law must be based on Sharia. All Shiite leaders now seem to be agreed on the need to give important positions in the new government both to Kurds and to Sunnis. Kurds have to be included simply to win a majority in the new Assembly; participation by Sunnis is presumably necessary for national unity and peace. (Will the Sunnis accept the Kurds getting Kirkuk? Are the Kurds already taking the city over, more or less peacefully?)

When asked point blank if he has close ties to the present mullahs of Iran, Jafaari says "This is just a widespread, mistaken belief." A bit reminiscent of the bail hearing for a mobster, where the prosecutor says: "the people request remand, your honour, Mr. Slickiano has well-known mob ties," and the defence lawyer jumps to his feet to say "alleged, your Honour."

Speaking of trouble with the law, Chalabi, now that he has lost out for Prime Minister, seems to be angling for a job as deputy prime minister in charge of finance and security. Hmmm.... The better to continue to destroy records that would prove his complicity in various crimes?

UPDATE: I posted some time ago on Allawi and Chalabi--they were rivals for money and influence in Washington, and for support for some bold anti-Saddam initiative in Iraq. They were each responsible for a "Bay of Goats"-type fiasco in the 90s.

New Thinking on Sovereignty

I recently reported on a talk by Allan Gottlieb, which he said the U.S. under Bush is proceeding as though the very assumptions of the UN, including the unbreachable sovereignty of member states, are questioned or set aside.

The sovereignty of each nation-state has been considered the keystone of the international system. What happens inside a country is basically that country's business. The international convention on genocide probably doesn't even speak of another country's or group of countries right to stop genocide. At most there is a mechanism to appeal to the Security Council (subject to veto), and then if everything goes well, intervene, but only if the genocide in one country somehow threatens the peace of other countries. Genocide in itself isn't a problem that "needs" to be solved, as Darfur is demonstrating.

Dominoes falling in Middle East?

There are indications that things are going Bush's way--and not only in Iraq:

Syria (via Instapundit) may be forced by popular resistance to leave Lebanon. There may be increasing pressure for democracy in both Lebanon and Syria itself.

(See Michael Young on Hit and Run).

Comparisons to 1848 (via Corner)? Fall of the Berlin Wall?

Walid Jumblatt, the patriarch of the Druze Muslim community and, until recently, a man who accommodated Syria's occupation, is starting to hope for, and expect democracy--even in Egypt. He gives credit to Bush.

I read "liberal" or "leftie" blogs every day, and I must say: they just don't seem to know what to say. Even if Bush is a fool, and good outcomes are a matter of dumb luck, how can you not celebrate the spread of democracy?

I don't buy the "anti-American left" talk. I think intellectuals have been committed to peace and diplomacy for a long time. In their view, war can only make things worse; the world as a whole will become more peaceful, as long as we rely exclusively on peaceful means.

These people, admittedly, have been known to swing harder to the left. People as we see them are not prepared to become sheep grazing in a meadow. They have antiquated notions (no doubt put in their heads by the forces of reaction) about personal property and family life, honour, things you might fight for. So we have to carry out, well, purges, to bring about "socialist man" or something. Communists always intend to be non-violent, honestly, but somehow wherever they gain a lot of power, millions die.

Left wing intellectuals might hate their parents and traditions more than they hate any foreigner or enemy--because old-fashioned people didn't believe in being "open to everything," and any lingering old-fashioned beliefs might be the very things that stand in the way of peace.

Bushies are saying that old-fashioned national security is not obsolete--hatred of people who are true enemies is not a bad thing, and war is sometimes both necessary and desirable.

I'll try to spell this out further, but I'm thinking now: the left identifies with the last man, at least some of the right identifies with the second last man. One more big war, then we can all be hippies.

UPDATE: Bush also deserves credit for reminding Putin of the importance of democracy. Like all leaders, Bush will have to make some accomodation in his pursuit of liberty to work with less than perfect allies; but he may make it clear he doesn't like it, and he expects history to move toward democracy not away from it.

UPDATE: Feb. 26 4:30 pm EST: Bush is also putting pressure on Egypt. Things are happening fast: the LAT says today: "most Middle Eastern autocrats... [snip]... may hold elections — but only for positions on powerless parliaments or councils." Yet within the last few hours:

In a surprise and dramatic reversal, President Hosni Mubarak took a first significant step Saturday toward democratic reform in the world's most populous Arab country, ordering the constitution changed to allow presidential challengers on the ballot this fall.

An open election has long been a demand of the opposition but was repeatedly rejected by the ruling party, with Mubarak only last month dismissing calls for reform as ``futile.''

The sudden shift was the first sign from the key U.S. ally that it was ready to participate in the democratic evolution in the Middle East, particularly historic elections in Iraq and the Palestinian territories. Mubarak's government has faced increasingly vocal opposition at home and growing friction with the United States over the lack of reform.

``We have moved a mountain,'' said Rifaat el-Said, leader of the opposition Tagammu party. ``This should open the gate for other democratic reforms.''

"The Woman Question"

As it used to be called in the suffragette days.

Larry Summers, president of Harvard, spoke at a conference at the National Bureau of Economic Research on Jan. 14, on the subject of women in science and engineering. (At a "workshop" with about 50 people present). The overall theme of the conference was “Diversifying the Science and Engineering Workforce: Women, Underrepresented Minorities and Their S&E Careers”.

Summers famously suggested that some differences between men and women that might appear to be socialized are actually innate. He prefaced his remarks by saying he was being provocative, and it was very clear that he was not speaking as an expert--he spoke discursively, and gave one example about the behaviour of his own daughter.

Two contentious claims: women might not be appearing in greater numbers in high-profile careers because they "choose" not to take on the responsibilities and hours. They might, in particular, want to make room for family time more than men do.

Secondly, there is evidence that men's and women's brains are different. Apparently there is some evidence that men outnumber women both at the bottom of the performance scale for many activities, and at the top. More male morons, more male geniuses, I guess. (About half corresponding to a passage in Plato's Republic).

Much of the debate is not only about right and wrong, but who has behaved worse. Some of Summers' defenders have said some of his remarks were questionable, but people shouldn't be so easily offended, political correctness keeps running amok, etc. A biology prof from MIT walked out in a huff, so some people (including women) have teased her for apparently suffering from the vapours when supposed gentlemen misbehave.

UPDATE: Oops! the "vapors" meme may have started with George Will.

But there are critics who say that even with the transcript available, Summers should not have said what he said. I am certainly sympathetic to the notion that the president of a university has to stay on message more than a professor does--part of his responsibility is that he is not just free-associating reminiscences, recent reading, and impressions whether intelligent or not, in a never-ending seminar. Maybe this is just the boomers again.

Meghan O'Rourke has a piece on Slate which is serious, yet troubling. She says Summers shouldn't have indicated so clearly that "the latest research" is on the side of innate vs. socialized differences. When people see a baby startle at a noise, and then they are told the baby's gender, many people say a female baby was frightened, but a male baby was angry. O'Rourke: "Consider what a difference it makes if, from the age of 9 months, you treat one group of people as fearful and another as aggressive."

O'Rourke doubts that the "choices" women make are "free": there are all kinds of supports and expectations that will help a man pursue a high-powered career, and they are spotty or absent for women. Somehow we have to come to grips with "culture-wide conditioning."

Summers himself has apparently said, in one of his many apologies, "My January remarks substantially understated the impact of socialization and discrimination, including implicit attitudes—patterns of thought to which all of us are unconsciously subject."

Now I'm beginning to get it. These influences are everywhere, and all-pervasive--so much so that we are all unconscious of them. But wait: not everyone is unconscious: a few enlightened people know the truth, and will share it with us. All we have to do is accept their analysis and recommendations, even though we are completely "unconscious" of the problem they are identifying as a priority. It's like the image of the cave in the Republic, except we don't really know if the puppets that are used to cast shadows are based (to some degree) on reality or not: we are "unconscious." It's like the priests in the middle ages; they know, we don't, we should just keep our mouths shut and obey.

Or maybe the enlightened ones are just as unconscious as the rest of us, and they are asking us to accept what everyone knows is a pure guess, or an arbitrary decision to say and do certain things as far as women are concerned. There is no truth, or we are too unconscious to grasp any, so we might as well just give ambitious women what they want.

A male baby who startles is (perhaps) taken to be angry; a female is taken to be fearful. Do a lot of people in our society think girls and women are fearful creatures, constantly in need of reassurance and help? Does anyone who actually lives with girls and women think so? Isn't it a cliche among parents that girls are just as aggressive as boys--only less physical? Isn't it largely a matter of choosing different weapons--and discovering at an early age that both tears and laughter are powerful weapons?

There is obviously a concern that any talk about innate differences will be used as an excuse not to hire and promote women. Again, is there any basis for this fear in our world? Aren't elite instituions knocking themselves out to train and hire women? Many people agree with Summers' point out that if many schools were discriminating against talented women, a few schools would surely react by hiring this neglected talent, and creating a female powerhouse. The evidence is rather that the pool of talented females is fished extremely heavily, all the time.

Supports for careers: Anecdotes again. We met a female pediatric neurologist in the States. She must have done about 9 years of post-grad study. She confirmed Summers' point that in general, high-pressure careers seem crazy from a point of view of family, or well-rounded life, or anything like that. She said you can see marriages dissolve all the time affecting doctors in a teaching hospital--and the worse things get at home, the more time they spend at the hospital, where they are more or less gods. She was about to move to the country, for the sake of her family. She would not be able to practice neurology out there--it would be either family practice or pediatrics, using only part of her training.

No one is going to suggest that we deliberately train fewer women if they are less likely than men to stay with a high-powered career. But many of us are bothered by a modern development: since 1960, women have stopped staying at home to the same extent, and they are pursuing careers. This has not meant that men stay home in anywhere near the same numbers--on the contrary, it means kids are in the care of strangers, or home alone.

O'Rourke says France is doing better than the U.S. at attracting and keeping women in the sciences. No doubt we do have a lot to learn.

Somehow this is all related to the Susan Estrich/Michael Kinsley controversy. Estrich's complaints seem to be a more obvious case of a highly successful woman complaining that she is not even more successful: her column is not running in the LA Times, despite the fact that she has been friends with Kinsley; yet women she has never heard of , and doesn't agree with, are published there. (Via

Kevin Drum).

Disraeli's Invective

I had to go to the university library and photocopy this; it's not easy to find. Before Disraeli became an MP (in the 1830s) he engaged in an exchange of invective in the newspapers with Daniel O'Connell, a leader of the Irish Catholics.

There is a fairly full account in the huge old biography of Disraeli by Monypenny and Buckle. Now that I check again, Blake has not a bad account--not really capturing all the intellectual bite.

O'Connell had read a summary--almost certainly inaccurate--of a speech by Disraeli. He believed Disraeli had referred to him as an "incendiary and a traitor." O'Connell was being mentioned a lot because he was suddenly co-operating with the Whigs--against whom he had earlier said some harsh things. So naturally in defending himself against Disraeli, he mentioned that Disraeli had changed from running as a Radical to running as a Tory.

O'Connell:

[blockquote]Now, my answer to this piece of gratuitous impertinence is, that he is an egregious liar. He is a liar both in action and words. What! shall such a vile creature be tolerated in England? [snip] He is a living lie; and the British Empire is degraded by tolerating a miscreant of his abominable description. The language is harsh, I must confess; but it is no more than deserved, and if I should apologise for using it, it is because I can find no harsher epithet in the English language by which to convey the utter abhorrence which I entertain for such a reptile. [To become a Conservative] he possesses all the necessary requisites of perfidy, selfishness, depravity, want of principle, & c., which would qualify him for the change.[/blockquote]

Then, a paragraph quoted by Blake:

His name shows that he is of Jewish origin. I do not use it as a term of reproach; there are many most respectable Jews. But there are, as in every other people, some of the lowest and most disgusting grade of moral turpitude; and of those I look upon Mr. Disraeli as the worst. He has just the qualities of the impenitent thief on the Cross, and I verily believe, if Mr. Disraeli's family herald were to be examined and his genealogy traced, the same personage would be discovered to be the heir at law of the exalted individual to whom I allude. I forgive Mr. Disraeli now, and as the lineal descendant of the blasphemous robber, who ended his career beside the Founder of the Christian Faith, I leave the gentleman to the enjoyment of his infamous distinction and family honours.

With regard to your taunts as to my want of success in my election contests, permit me to remind you that I had nothing to appeal to but the good sense of the people. No threatening skeletons canvassed for me; a death's-head and cross-bones were not blazoned on my banners. My pecuniary resources, too, were limited; I am not one of those public beggars that we see swarming with their obtrusive boxes in the chapels of your creed, nor am I in possession of a princely revenue wrung from a starving race of fanatical slaves.

Dr. House, Drugs, and being an "Idiot"

We're still addicted to House, MD on TV.

They finally focussed on House's addiction to vicodin last week. He supposedly takes the pills for a pain in his leg--where a muscle died. But the amount he takes is steadily going upward.

Dr. Cuddy, the administrator of the hospital, bets House that he can't go cold turkey for a month. Of course, he can't refuse a bet. So you see him go through withdrawal as the episode unfolds. Naturally, this also means everyone questions his judgement more than usual--he arrives at a meeting, late, sweating, eyes dilated, obviously having trouble concentrating, and says something dramatic like: do this or you'll kill the patient. His young colleagues are practically begging him to go back on the pills.

He turns out to be right about how to save a patient--yet again--but he goes back on the pills. He tells Wilson, probably his closest friend, that he now has to admit he has an addiction, but he doesn't have a problem. Wilson challenges him, saying he has no real relationships. House pretty much just says this is what he was always like--yet, we know his intake of pills is increasing, and we now suspect that being high all the time contributes to his distance from people, his rudeness; he is totally caught up in his own body, moods and feelings. Self-absorbed is an understatement.

Of course, there is his work, and he always emerges as slightly better than the others because he refuses to give up on a patient; he's not always right, but he always thinks and acts as though nothing matters except getting the diagnosis right on this particular patient. He is right that rudeness, etc. shouldn't matter if you are achieving excellence, yet this seems crazy too--too single-minded to be sane. And aren't all these patients going to die anyway?

House likes to call people "idiots." The original meaning of this word in ancient Greek was roughly "someone who takes no part in the community"--a loner. In way there was no necessary suggestion of a low IQ, except that there would have to be some explanation for remaining isolated.

And then tonight I watched most of "Leaving Las Vegas" on TV--Nic Cage as a drunk who is determined to die.

What Sistani Wants

Good piece in Newsweek.

Highlights: The Grand Ayatollah Sistani is an Iranian, so he was actually unable to vote in the recent Iraqi election. He has believed since he was young that a more secular regime, based somehow on Islamic law, is better than a mullocracy such as Iran has adopted. He disagreed about this issue with Khomeini, founder of the mullocracy in Iran, when they were both students.

He has been a tremendous force for moderation among the Shiites in Iraq. Many times people have come to him saying they must retaliate against violence, and he has talked them out of it. He seems to have supported American action against Sadr, when the latter young man seemed out of control. And he has directed his people: to demand an early election, and then to vote.

If things continue to go well in Iraq, Bush will no doubt take credit, but as far as I can tell the role of Sistani is dumb luck as far as Bush is concerned: he didn't expect Sistani to do so much good, or plan for it; I don't think he's ever mentioned Sistani's name. It seems unlikely that Chalabi or the neo-cons ever said Sistani would be the bedrock that a new Iraqi state would be built on. (Hence Robin Wright's observation that the "Islamic" character of the emerging Iraq must be at least a bit of a nasty shock to Bush and his brain trust).

Once again, Bush gets lucky--as he has been all his life.

One author of the Newsweek, piece, Rod Nordland, has given what amounts to a hilarious on-line interview on Iraq. I found it via Matthew Yglesias.

Kyoto, etc.

Chris Mooney asks: Why would so many countries have signed up to the Kyoto Protocol if global warming is a hoax?

Well....many people in government are probably convinced that there is a meaningful corelation between CO2 levels (methane levels?) and a temperature increase, and the latter is dangerous. At the same time, the situation of every country is different. Some, like Russia, expect to pay nothing for Kyoto, and to gain some credit with Europe. (Perhaps in a material sense they would profit even more without Kyoto?) China and India were excluded from the beginning; they are having problems with energy use and pollution, so they expect to pay no price for polluting, while getting some technological assistance in modernizing in a cleaner fashion. The Europeans do not expect to pay much of a price, but they do expect to sell that technology to China and India. The pact was designed to transfer wealth from the U.S. to everyone else, and since it was signed in 1997 it is even more the case that even Germany is in the "everyone else" category.

Ronald Bailey says the "official" report on global warming includes rather gloomy predictions on global population growth and per capita carbon consumption. Total global population is expected to level off soon--at 7.5 billion in 2040, not 8.4 billion in 2100, and certainly not 15 billion--and per capita carbon consumption has been going down steadily--replaced partly by natural gas consumption, which may or may not be a huge improvement for climate change. If electric cars begin to take hold, their energy may come from non-fossil fuel sources. Much of Ontario's energy, for example, comes from nuclear plants.