So, about that who “Orange revolution” thing…:

(CNN) — In a remarkable comeback, former Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovich seemed set Monday to become the president of Ukraine — five years after he was ousted in a populist pro-Western uprising dubbed the “Orange Revolution.”

With more than 98 percent of the ballots processed, Yanukovich had won 48.60 percent of the votes.

Because our current political reality seems pathologically incapable of looking at past Important Things and comparing predictions then to today, I have to wonder what everyone who was talking about Ukraine (including similarly clueless people like myself) five years would make of this?  I mean, I have to admit that at the time I thought it was pretty amazing, and if someone told me that the very guy who got kicked out would be back in power in only five years, I don’t think I would’ve believed them.

What does this mean?  It doesn’t help that I know literally nothing about Ukraine, except where it is on the map and that it’s hard to hold on to in Risk.  Is this proof that revolutions can’t sustain being in charge?  That previous authority figures can change, or perhaps just subvert the electoral process more transparently?  I certainly don’t know.  Insert quote about it “being too early to tell about the French revolution” here.  But I guess I should get with the program.  This is so last decade’s revolution.  All the cool kids moved on to Lebanon and Iran after that.  Green is a much cooler color than Orange anyway…

Edit 1: The one thing I can categorically endorse is the association of colors with revolutions.  I think it should be made mandatory, so that in a few years we have to dig into the obscure crayola colors to describe the rebellion in Albania.  Long live the Puce Revolution.

Edit 2: What is super double-plus ironic is that the international CNN.com has this story running parallel to “Iran Marks Revolution Anniversary.”

So the only difference between world opinion almost universally condemning the US president for conducting two wars in different countries and multiple nations having musicals celebrating him is…:

BERLIN – A musical about Barack Obama’s “Yes we can” election campaign premieres in Germany this weekend, including love songs by the president to his wife Michelle and duets with Hillary Clinton.

[...]

Two other musicals about the president were performed in other countries last year: “Obama On My Mind” in London and “Obama: The Musical” in Nairobi, Kenya.

… what exactly?  I absolutely do not get the world’s approval of Barack Obama.  It’s almost like they like him because he’s a charismatic leader, and don’t actually care about the fact that he’s continuing the foreign policy of his hated predecessor almost to the letter.  This is extremely worrisome — because the message it sends to our voters and our leaders is that all we have to do is elect a charismatic leader and we can get away with anything.

What if Barack Obama’s political career had started 8 years earlier, and he had been president instead of Bush?  It’s possible world opinion would have turned on him, and it’s certainly a more damning act to start two wars rather than simply continue them — but if world opinion were truly against the actions themselves and not the person who started them, one would think that you’d have to be pretty upset with Obama for not even reducing the conflicts.

Now, maybe this is still some honeymoon period and opinion will change when we are still in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2012 or 2016.  But he’s been in office for a year now — a relatively large percentage of the total time we’ve been at war.  At the risk of continuing this lame fake naivete even further, I guess I always assumed that the reason people around the world disliked Bush was because of what he did.  Turns out quite a few have no problem with it, so long as a friendly face is the one continuing the policies.

I certainly have a lot of disagreements with the recently deceased Howard Zinn, but one thing he could be relied upon was to criticize the aggressive foreign policy of presidents, no matter the party:

I’ ve been searching hard for a highlight. The only thing that comes close is some of Obama’s rhetoric; I don’t see any kind of a highlight in his actions and policies.

As far as disappointments, I wasn’t terribly disappointed because I didn’t expect that much. I expected him to be a traditional Democratic president. On foreign policy, that’s hardly any different from a Republican–as nationalist, expansionist, imperial and warlike. So in that sense, there’s no expectation and no disappointment.

[...]

But he becomes president, and he’s not making any significant step away from Bush policies. Sure, he keeps talking about closing Guantánamo, but he still treats the prisoners there as “suspected terrorists.” They have not been tried and have not been found guilty. So when Obama proposes taking people out of Guantánamo and putting them into other prisons, he’s not advancing the cause of constitutional rights very far. And then he’s gone into court arguing for preventive detention, and he’s continued the policy of sending suspects to countries where they very well may be tortured.

I think people are dazzled by Obama’s rhetoric, and that people ought to begin to understand that Obama is going to be a mediocre president–which means, in our time, a dangerous president

You’d think that the trite scenario of “charismatic leader does objectionable things while people (literally!) sing his praises” would be so familiar to the world by now that we would be inoculated to this particular brain virus, but apparently not.

This is the future.  Sure it was the future from 3 months ago, but whatever.  Watch the whole thing!  From the transcript:

But many of you argue, actually, that all of our work is not only about physical objects. We actually do lots of accounting and paper editing and all those kinds of things; what about that? And many of you are excited about the next generation tablet computers to come out in the market. So, rather than waiting for that, I actually made my own, just using a piece of paper. So, what I did here is remove the camera – All the webcam cameras have a microphone inside the camera. I removed the microphone from that, and then just pinched that – like I just made a clip out of the microphone – and clipped that to a piece of paper, any paper that you found around. So now the sound of the touch is getting me when exactly I’m touching the paper. But the camera is actually tracking where my fingers are moving.

The largest physical part of almost every device that humans interact with nowadays is the interface.  Laptops are physically dominated by their keyboard and screen.  Phones are dominated by the screen and keypad.  Look how tiny the Shuffle is — it has no interface.  You could set it in your palm and barely notice you were holding it.

This is going to be one of the biggest changes that you’ll be able to see in the world around you — the abolition of the physical interface.  Everyone can see the trend for collapsing all our devices down to one –at some point we all know that we’ll have 1 device for email, internet, voice, video, text, messaging, writing and everything else.  But what’s holding this back is the interfaces.  There is absolutely no reason that a device the size of the iPhone could not be designed to run a fully functional multitasking (unlike the new iPad) operating system that handled everything your desktop or laptop (or netbook) does.  The problem is the interface.  Can you imagine writing a paper on your iPhone?  Even watching a movie or video on a phone sized device is pretty underwhelming, at least until I saw those projector-phone attachments.

But devices and software like Mistry’s above point the way around these problems: completely dissolve the interface.  Project the visual input against any surface (and perhaps shortly, onto glasses, or using hologram technology, into the air in front of us) and abstract the tactile interface.  Mistry offers a perfect example in his video — the mouse.  With the (now old fashioned) advent of the optical mouse, there is no reason you actually need a physical device.  You could simply put an accelerometer into a glove or one of Mistry’s fingertip marker caps, or attach one of the tiny optical mouse cameras, or at some point in the future, as a tiny implant in your finger bones.   Add a wireless connection that greedily connects to any wireless-enabled device (i.e. all of them) and voila — you have a completely portable mouse.   Mice don’t even really provide any tactile feedback, unlike a keyboard, so we’re not losing a thing — we had a system that detected small hand motions and we’ve simply stripped away all the chaff.

Next up — the keyboard.  This becomes trivial with Mistry’s marker caps, or something like this, or even if you’re old fashioned, tiny inserts in your jeans that sit on the tops of your thighs and detect you tapping away.

So we’ve got the mouse and the keyboard.  Audio’s easy, everyone has those little bluetooth earpieces.  Mistry’s talk shows us the projection screen which can go on any surface.  We can shortly imagine projecting this onto the inner surface of a special pair of glasses as well, for more privacy.  So what part of a computer is left?  All the boring tiny bits, which become smaller, faster and cheaper every year.  It’s easy to imagine fitting them into a pocket and letting them wirelessly connect to all the interface devices.  So — what does this let us do?

Misty has seen some of the best applications already (watch the talk all the way through) — who needs a kindle when you can just project the ebook on any surface?  Everyone wants the ability to put notes or doodles on their book — now you can, just wave your finger about in the path of the projected page.  The part where it scans the product at the store is beautiful too — ideally you’d have a pop-up that tells you that it was cheaper at the place across the street (or even more likely, from an online source), or gives customer reviews, or links to Underwriter’s or Consumer Reports on the product.

He also hits a home-run with the virtual post it notes.  Except instead of just post-it notes to yourself that you can put anywhere and transfer to/from any device, you can upload it to a virtual-post-it network and leave virtual graffiti anywhere you want, visible to whoever you want to let see it.  The applications of this are really endless — imagine being able to leave notes anywhere — ” don’t order the halibut at this restaurant.”  ”This was where Edgar Allen Poe wrote his most famous book.”  ”Watch out, there are lots of potholes on the next road.”  Or heck, you could attach them to certain people (no doubt there is a possibility of abuse here) and let people know “this loser doesn’t tip.”  I imagine it won’t be long until someone redirects their twitter feed into hovering clumps of 140 character clouds.

What about cameras?   Watch for the “take a picture” with your hands scene too — absolutely amazing.  My one beef is where he shows “pinching” files from your portable device to your desktop, where it appears on his… old fashioned display screen.  That’s pretty damn cool, but what’s the point of a desktop machine at all?  Carry everything in your portable device and just display it on a blank space where your desktop monitor used to be.  Why ever sit down at a desk again?  The only reason we had those in the first place was as a place to store your files and your computer.  Also, I laughed when he clicked “print” on his “paper pc.”  What?  Why not send it by carrier pigeon too, just to complete the archaic media loop?

This is the future: where interfaces become transparent and the tiny hidden computers augment and improve the reality we see around us in intuitive ways.  So, people who are smarter and more talented than me: get to work!  I want to be able to buy all this cool stuff, pronto.

… in talking about anything other than this?:

[..] one of the Gitmo Three [ostensible "suicides"] was arrested at age 17, held for some years without being charged, and scheduled for release at the time of his death due to the military’s conclusion that no evidence linked him to al Qaeda or the Taliban. We may never know exactly how he and his fellow detainees died: A conclusive, independent autopsy is impossible because their bodies were returned to their families with their throats missing.

What I want to ask everyone: what do you lose by loudly condemning this?  You can still support the war on terror, the invasion of Iraq, indefinite detention, torture or whatever else you want to support, while still admitting that murdering an innocent person and then covering it up is wrong.  There is no reason to not denounce this; except as a signal to your ideological masters that you are willing to overlook even the worst crimes to prove your obedience.

What the heck?  Stop making my healthcare posts look stupid only a few weeks after I put them up.

This is pathetic.  Is there somewhere I can donate to a fund for Haitian emigration?  It seems like a few hundred for a plane ticket and some bribes to the INS would be a more cost effective form of (permanent) aid.

So, where are they?  If you accept the premise that Obama is more likely to draw down the war in Iraq than Bush was, and if anti-war protests are held with the goal of persuading one’s leaders to end that war, (instead of,  say, signalling that you hold socially acceptable beliefs) then shouldn’t there be more since he became president?  It’s been nearly a year, and unless the media’s been doing a really good job of suppressing my knowledge of them, there haven’t been many.  Certainly the volume of talking heads debating it has gone down drastically.  And foreign approval rates of the US have gone up quite a bit, despite absolutely no indication we’re likely to leave Iraq.

Could it be that Americans (or anyone else for that matter) really aren’t all that anti-war, unless they can use it as a club against their political opponents?  Sure, I know, get with the times: we’re all talking about healthcare now!  Sometimes I just wonder if I should believe the people who tell me that this issue is of utmost importance, when it seems that everyone has forgotten about the last super-urgent item.

Can someone clear this up for me?  Or did everyone just say “oh good, now I don’t have to worry about Iraq any more” when Bush left office?  Or is the healthcare debate just that fascinating?

This is great stuff:

We lost.   They won.

We are:

Progressives who favor a single-payer system

Libertarians who favor HSAs

Moderate economists who favor cost control to free up money for other societal goals

They are:

Doctors

Pharmaceutical companies

Hospitals

Private prepaid health plans (for some odd reason referred to as “insurance companies”)

Medical device makers

And many other special interest groups

Minor quibble with “doctors,” as certain specialties will benefit and certain ones will not, but still, that basically covers it.  What’s most interesting (at least for me, because confirmation bias is lots of fun) is his comments on the (completely insane) idea that regular health maintenance (doctor’s visits, normal drugs) and catastrophic care (car accidents, cancer) are still being treated as the same thing:

Private prepaid health plans (for some odd reason referred to as “insurance companies”)

[...]

The way to achieve this is with a combination of HSAs and catastrophic insurance.

His “odd reason” above highlights the insanity: insurance is for low risk, high cost events.  It should not cover doctor’s visits or birth control.  This is not to say that you can’t (or shouldn’t) have a plan that pays for those things, but it is emphatically not insurance, and should be treated and regulated differently.

I also like his proposed alternative (take that, reformers who say no one else has any better ideas!):

Sometimes I think the two political extremes blew an opportunity.  Let Medicare take over catastrophic insurance for everyone, and let HSAs cover 95% of health care bills.  Then provide a subsidy to low income workers’ HSAs.  Voila, no private insurance companies.

That would work, (the vital component is the different treatment of maintenance and catastrophic healthcare) but again, at the risk of being nitpicky, I’d split the “catastrophic” care segment, by establishing some dollar amount “medicare opt-out” that you could elect to take.  That way, if you felt like you could do better on your own, you could go that route, but you’d be ineligible for medicare forever.  Oh, and no healthcare reform (well, you know, other than the one we just passed) is complete without repealing the current bias in the tax code for employer provided insurance over individual provided. Still, these are minor nitpicks.

What it comes down to is this: libertarians warned that this hallmark of progressive policy making would end up getting completely corrupted by precisely those groups progressives hate most, to great financial and political gain.  And they were right. But then, maybe I just want thousands of poor people to die, so who are you to believe?

Hernando De Soto!  Let’s give him a cape and a ticket from Lima to Kabul and let him work this stuff out:

Kabul, Afghanistan (CNN) — In the Afghan capital’s department of motor vehicles, the simple act of registering a car can turn into days, even weeks, of waiting and frustration. Unless you pay off the right people.

[...]

The chaotic outdoor space that passes for a waiting area was teeming with “agents,” men who make sure bribe money reaches the right government offices and the paperwork gets done. Some, desperate for work, want their business to become a legal profession.

That sure sounds familiar!  Sadly, I’m not sure just sending De Soto over to talk to Karzai will work, mainly because, well:

He [De Soto] has briefed a number of national leaders like Vladimir Putin and Hamid Karzai, however none of them have yet chosen to implement his policies.[13]

Damn it.  Putin and Karzai are probably two of the world leaders (I should maybe use “ex-leader” in Putin’s case, but then…) who most need to hear his message — that economies don’t succeed without the basic foundations:

De Soto argues that an important characteristic of capitalism is the functioning state protection of property rights in a formal property system where ownership and transactions are clearly recorded.

I think the reason that his policies have not been implemented (other than Peru, where he had the ear of the government) is that for most countries, the spoils of political power are exactly this: corruption, bureaucracy and purposely vague laws of ownership — it’s much easier to steal and take when it’s hard to prove who owns what.  This isn’t a terrible byproduct of the political system that we must squash — for a large percentage of Afghani (and Russian, and American) politicians, this is the point.  And so we see comments like this:

The key question for the Karzai government now is whether corruption so endemic can be successfully eradicated.

This is pretty typical: viewing corruption as something the government is striving against; two entities with divergent goals, fighting to see who the victor will be.  But in reality, it is the people in the government simply acting out their own natures, and struggling only to conceal it from the few who would disapprove and have the power to stop them.  And that is a vanishingly small number of people in Afghanistan.

Very interesting:

Estimates using student assignment lotteries show large and significant test score gains for charter lottery winners in middle and high school. In contrast, lottery-based estimates for pilot schools are small and mostly insignificant.

“What’s a pilot school?” you say?

These schools have some of the independence of charter schools, but operate within the school district, face little risk of closure, and are covered by many of same collective bargaining provisions [as opposed to charter schools] as traditional public schools.

This is interesting not only because it highly recommends charter schools, but also perhaps points to the exact reasons why.  Correlation is of course not causation, but it seems to be that when schools have no risk of closure, they operate less efficiently — which of course also fits rather well into the basic conception that people who have no penalty for failure tend to fail rather often.

This also points to why, even though I’m pretty libertarian, I don’t necessarily believe we need to abolish state funded schools — this just points to ways in which we could improve the current situation.  Not all things that are provided by the government need to be physically administrated by the government — we have the state provide food for the poor, but we don’t actually have government workers tilling the fields.  And so it can be with schools.

But I think we can all agree on the concept that if an individual or organization has no penalties for failing to perform their job, that job will rarely get completed satisfactorily.

A just war is in the long run far better for a nation’s soul than the most prosperous peace obtained by acquiescence in wrong or injustice.

Theodore Roosevelt

But sometimes it’s not so much better for the poor slobs who get sent over the trenches.  This quote is in the same category as Obama’s Nobel speech: perhaps without context it is true that yes, there are times where a just war would be superior to some inequitable peace, but I’m not sure humanity has ever constructed a real scenario where this is true.

And, when you look at what Teddy considered to be a “just war,” it also makes you wonder.

If there is not the war, you don’t get the great general; if there is not a great occasion, you don’t get a great statesman; if Lincoln had lived in a time of peace, no one would have known his name.

Theodore Roosevelt, on why presidential “greatness” rankings correlate so well with the number of Americans killed during that president’s administration.

Okay, in light of the previous post’s topic, I want to ask some questions.

First of all, all the anti-war people who voted for Obama — when are you going to admit you were duped?  I’ll admit to certain feelings of betrayal as well:  I thought that at the very least, on foreign policy, he would spin down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Second, for all the people who talk about his eloquence and sensitivity (of which I’ll admit to greatly appreciating with respect to recent other presidents), how the hell do you reconcile that with the concept of giving an acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize in which you defend the necessary nature of war?  I mean, absent any context, yes, it is a perfectly acceptable debate point to present — but this, and I’m not sure I’ve repeated this enough, was the acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize.

For example, perhaps you believe that sometimes it is right to strike a woman — such as if she attacks you with a knife in a dark alley.  But as true as that single statement might be, out of context, perhaps it would not be a good time to bring it up, say, when you are receiving an award granted by an organization fighting to end domestic abuse.

“Thank you all for this great honor, in the spirit of protecting women against the horrors of abuse.  Now, if you don’t mind, I’d like to talk about some times when it’s okay to punch a lady.”

If you do mention something like that,  it makes the audience wonder: “huh, why is he saying this now?  Why would he bring that up unless he has doubts about the spirit of the award we are giving him?”  Well, in Obama’s case, that might be exactly the reason.  Surely he must realize the hilarity of escalating an 8 year long war a few days before accepting the Nobel Peace prize.  Even on the mind of the President, long immune to this sort of cognitive dissonance, that has to make an impression.

Finally, for everyone who basically accepts the premises of the political left, what the heck do you see in this guy?  Corporate bailouts?  War escalation?  Blatant neo-con principles of “war to make the world freer”?  Mandates to buy the products of evil greedy insurance companies?  No removal of don’t-ask-don’t-tell?  Support for the Defense of Marriage Amendment?  No major changes to indefinite detention?  No major changes to the Patriot Act?  What are you people getting out of this?  The only thing I’ve seen so far is healthcare reform, and that’s not going so well either.  Do you think he’s going to commit to something major at Copenhagen?  Don’t bet on it.

I’m certainly not on the left, but I agree with them about the badness of many of these things.  So I’m just as disappointed that he’s failing at fixing them.  But then, I didn’t vote for him…

Okay fine, this one wasn’t from the past, but it was too good to pass up:

Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms,” he said. “The service of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans.”

Waging war is not a way of imposing the will of the United States on the world, he said, but a way of seeking a better future for its people.

“The instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace,” he said.

… Barack Obama, noted neo-conservative-nobel-peace-prize-winner???  I suppose you can debate whether or not this is “horrible,” since nearly everyone would agree that war is okay, say, to defend your country.  But Obama’s examples indicate he is explictly not talking about defensive wars:

Force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, Obama said, because inaction can tear at the world’s conscience and lead to more costly intervention later.

I love how he implies that intervention is inevitable, and the question is merely “when” we should intervene.

Also, the subtle slight to our participation in WW1 certainly points to the fact that he’s aware that sending our troops into that war only enabled the Allies to impose crushing penalties on Germany, and we all know where that led.

I know foreign policy isn’t everything, but didn’t we elect this guy so he wouldn’t say all the stupid things George Bush was saying?

I don’t go so far as to think that the only good Indians are dead Indians, but I believe nine out of ten are, and I shouldn’t inquire too closely into the case of the tenth. The most vicious cowboy has more moral principle than the average Indian.

– Theodore Roosevelt, noted cowboy.

Because I’m a loser stuck in the past, and because modern political criticism gets so repetitive, I figure it’s more fun to make fun of people from the past.  Let’s start with horrible presidential quotes from beloved Presidents:

“There is an organized propaganda against the League of Nations and against the treaty proceeding from exactly the same sources that the organized propaganda proceeded from which threatened this country here and there with disloyalty, and I want to say, I cannot say too often, any man who carries a hyphen about with him carries a dagger that he is ready to plunge into the vitals of this Republic whenever he gets ready.”[115]

Woodrow Wilson, noted racist-American.

3 months old but still good.

The CEO of Cleveland Clinic gives a Newsweek interview.  Some things were pretty good, some were bad, and some were insane:

Cosgrove declared this year that if it weren’t illegal under federal law, he would refuse to hire fat people as well. The resulting outcry led him to apologize for “hurtful” comments. But he has not backed down from his belief that obesity is a failure of willpower[.]

The problem is — being fat (up to a point) isn’t unhealthy.  Being sedentary and inactive is — and to his credit, the Cleveland Clinic does encourage people to exercise more.  If Cosgrove really wanted to improve the health of both his employees and his patients, he’d do well to focus more on activity and less on weight.

The main thesis of the article is that the Cleveland Clinic might be a good model for the rest of the country — and I agree.  But there aren’t enough rich Arab sheikhs with heart problems to fund all of the rest of the hospitals.

I don’t think I will ever be happy until I can claim that I haven’t heard about Sarah Palin for a full year.  I dislike her so much that I don’t even like reading articles (or sites, Mr. Sullivan!) that reference her, even if it’s only to mercilessly criticize her, because it’s so mind-numbingly boring and pointless.

Yes, yes, I’m very aware of many things that are bad — such as Palin, or being hit in the head with a tire iron.  I do not need to read any more treatises on either topic.  Besides, there are vastly more amusing and interesting people named Palin.

huh

Next Page »