I've been reading X-Men comics and thinking about super powers. Mostly about what ridiculously shallow treatment comics give to powers. Of course, if you think about these things too critically you come to the obvious conclusion that most powers are impossible: people don't fly, shoot rays from their eyes, or grow an extra set of limbs. There's no way to actually make those things happen.
But some powers are only exaggerations of things people really can do: super strength, toughness, speed, intelligence, healing, or agility. The nature of the power in these cases is totally reasonable. Only it's extent is impossible. Similarly, some super powers are actually only extreme talents: engineering, science, psychology, empathy, athletics, acrobatics, combat, or espionage. For some, being extraordinarily wealthy seems to be their primary power.
Some "powers" are explained as the common traits of extraordinary beings, especially aliens, angels, ghosts, and demons. Others are unique, inbred "gifts" inherent to unique individuals. Still others are attained only through extensive research or practice; this category seems to consist mostly of wizardry and science, probably owing to authors who don't know the difference.
(Side point: I really hate aliens in comic books. They're never handled well. They're rarely handled well in TV or movies either, though there are some fantastic exceptions like Contact or The Forgotten. Books tend to give them more thought.)
Powers can also be categorized by their use: passive powers that always work (Wolverine's healing power, Rogue's touch), active powers that are activated at will (Storm's weather control, Nightcrawler's teleportation), and environmental powers that consist of mundane reality interacting with other powers (Wolverine's skeleton, Cyclops' visor).
Some powers show up time and again until their wielders start to blur together. How many brute fighter mutants are there in the X-Men universe? Wolverine, Bishop, Cable, Colossus, Beast, Sabertooth, Deadpool, The Blob, Sunder, Stonewall, Strong Guy, Puck, Sasquatch... how many do you need before they become redundant? Flight, the ability to control fire, and powers of suggestion are also ridiculously popular.
The ability to tell the future is an interesting power, but can come in three different forms: one can extrapolate the future as extrapolated from the intents and goals of individuals (like watchers from the movie Push), from foreseeing the physical results of physical events (like the precogs from Minority Report), or from actually viewing future events (like in the movie Paycheck or the book Pastwatch). I especially like the contrast between the first two: a watcher of human intent cannot see the future of a deserted isle nor predict natural disasters, but a watcher of physical inevitabilities has their view clouded by the free will choices (espeically those an economist would call "choices on the margin"). Future viewing seems more like time travel than psychic powers; it is rather distinct from the other two.
I have always liked powers of knowing more than powers of doing, probably because my own habits are geared more towards study than action. (This blog is a partially successful attempt to increase my dedication to action.)
In the end, though, what makes a mutant an interesting character is not their powers but their personality. Wolverine is cool more because he is fierce, independent, and passionate than because he slices things up and seemingly cannot die. Beast is interesting not for his big, furry brutality but for how that contrasts and combines with his cultured, intellectual personality. Rogue is beautiful for the ways she finds to enjoy life, not the power that makes it difficult for her.
I'd love to have mentioned Storm, but those who have only seen the movies would disagree that she is interesting at all.
Characters are written to be impossibly and uniquely unlike humanity, but the ones we love are the ones who strikingly resemble mundane humanity. Perhaps the most loved superhero would do better things than all others without any powers at all.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Comparing Apples to Apples in Health Care III
Here are links to the first and second articles in the Apples to Apples series.
FactCheck.org, an institution I greatly support, has gotten into the survival rate issue. Previously I've been criticizing the comparison of health care systems via life expectancy and infant mortality rates while promoting survival rates for specific ailments as a better comparison of systems. FactCheck has taken it upon themselves to criticize straight survival rate numbers.
They start by conceding the obvious difference in the stats: "Across the board, the United States boasts a higher five-year relative survival rate than the European average," they say. "But survival rates also differ within the United States, between insured and uninsured populations. […] survival rates among the uninsured were [&hellip] similar to Europe[.] […] Rates for people on Medicaid were similar to the uninsured."
That initially looks pretty good for the US status quo, but this is a comparison of the USA to Europe, not to socialized medicine. When comparing cancer survival rates from the USA to Canada, Japan, Australia and Cuba (all nations with single-payer government health coverage systems) we come up even or low pretty consistently. (Except with prostate cancer, which is apparently more of a money-maker for doctors than a major harm to public health.)
Also, early detection campaigns can distort a nation's survival rate numbers; catching cancer early rather than waiting for more serious symptoms means you're treating a weaker form of the cancer. Even with identical health care systems, early detection means a better survival rate. Thus, societal differences can distort the comparison of health care systems. Europe isn't big on cancer screenings, and neither are the American uninsured. That explains pretty well why the lower tier of Europe and uninsured Americans doesn't really compare to the higher tier of care enjoyed by socialized medicine and the American insured.
As their dedication to non-partisanship demands, FactCheck.org refuses to take sides on the debate overall. Survival rates do make the USA look much better than life expectancy and infant mortality statistics do -- we have great survival rates overall. Also, it doesn't bode well for the public option when it's current American counterpart, Medicare, is more like being uninsured than well-covered. Thus, these points could be used to argue against the public option before the legislature. On the other hand, insured Americans essentially tie the four socialized medicine nations mentioned suggesting that a socialized medicine system would mean top-tier coverage for all. "There's no way to know!" is the unspoken FactCheck theme.
What would be ideal is a statistical analysis of deeply similar cases in different nations. Great collections of parallel case studies would give a good comparison view of the systems. But I haven't seen any sign that anyone has done that. So the job is to derive what conclusions we can from the information given.
The big thing that strikes me hardest is cancer survival rates: the USA is the worldwide best at surviving breast and prostate cancer [source], but FactCheck explains that away as powerful early detection campaigns. Which makes sense. That leaves me without any way to guess which nation has the best cancer treatment.
That leaves the pro-US-system argument heavily relying on a sentence from Wikipedia of all places: "Canadian patients [...] had a 17% higher risk of dying from heart attacks than did U.S. patients." [source] Okay, technically it refers to a study in the cardiovascular medicine journal Circulation, but I haven't actually read that article. It's a thin strand to cling to. Maybe, despite my confident facade, I really don't know who has the best health care system.
One of the Wikipedia footnotes links to this article, gives a brief analysis of some of these same points, followed by a great and universal principle that I shall now steal as the beginning this article's conclusion: "The available data often do not provide clear answers." That being the case, isn't a diversity of approaches the best way to determine the best approach? The USA should remain unique until it's system is proven inferior. Since such proof remains elusive, don't fix anything.
FactCheck.org, an institution I greatly support, has gotten into the survival rate issue. Previously I've been criticizing the comparison of health care systems via life expectancy and infant mortality rates while promoting survival rates for specific ailments as a better comparison of systems. FactCheck has taken it upon themselves to criticize straight survival rate numbers.
They start by conceding the obvious difference in the stats: "Across the board, the United States boasts a higher five-year relative survival rate than the European average," they say. "But survival rates also differ within the United States, between insured and uninsured populations. […] survival rates among the uninsured were [&hellip] similar to Europe[.] […] Rates for people on Medicaid were similar to the uninsured."
That initially looks pretty good for the US status quo, but this is a comparison of the USA to Europe, not to socialized medicine. When comparing cancer survival rates from the USA to Canada, Japan, Australia and Cuba (all nations with single-payer government health coverage systems) we come up even or low pretty consistently. (Except with prostate cancer, which is apparently more of a money-maker for doctors than a major harm to public health.)
Also, early detection campaigns can distort a nation's survival rate numbers; catching cancer early rather than waiting for more serious symptoms means you're treating a weaker form of the cancer. Even with identical health care systems, early detection means a better survival rate. Thus, societal differences can distort the comparison of health care systems. Europe isn't big on cancer screenings, and neither are the American uninsured. That explains pretty well why the lower tier of Europe and uninsured Americans doesn't really compare to the higher tier of care enjoyed by socialized medicine and the American insured.
As their dedication to non-partisanship demands, FactCheck.org refuses to take sides on the debate overall. Survival rates do make the USA look much better than life expectancy and infant mortality statistics do -- we have great survival rates overall. Also, it doesn't bode well for the public option when it's current American counterpart, Medicare, is more like being uninsured than well-covered. Thus, these points could be used to argue against the public option before the legislature. On the other hand, insured Americans essentially tie the four socialized medicine nations mentioned suggesting that a socialized medicine system would mean top-tier coverage for all. "There's no way to know!" is the unspoken FactCheck theme.
What would be ideal is a statistical analysis of deeply similar cases in different nations. Great collections of parallel case studies would give a good comparison view of the systems. But I haven't seen any sign that anyone has done that. So the job is to derive what conclusions we can from the information given.
The big thing that strikes me hardest is cancer survival rates: the USA is the worldwide best at surviving breast and prostate cancer [source], but FactCheck explains that away as powerful early detection campaigns. Which makes sense. That leaves me without any way to guess which nation has the best cancer treatment.
That leaves the pro-US-system argument heavily relying on a sentence from Wikipedia of all places: "Canadian patients [...] had a 17% higher risk of dying from heart attacks than did U.S. patients." [source] Okay, technically it refers to a study in the cardiovascular medicine journal Circulation, but I haven't actually read that article. It's a thin strand to cling to. Maybe, despite my confident facade, I really don't know who has the best health care system.
One of the Wikipedia footnotes links to this article, gives a brief analysis of some of these same points, followed by a great and universal principle that I shall now steal as the beginning this article's conclusion: "The available data often do not provide clear answers." That being the case, isn't a diversity of approaches the best way to determine the best approach? The USA should remain unique until it's system is proven inferior. Since such proof remains elusive, don't fix anything.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Obameter #178: Handling Military Combatants
The classic idea of war is that two nations each build up an army and try to bash the other nation's army and country to bits. In order to minimize the inhumane damage war causes to the wounded, the sick, prisoners, civilians and other victims of war, several conventions were held in Geneva, Switzerland starting in 1864. These rules of wartime conduct are well-known under the name "the Geneva Conventions".
A new convention was held in Geneva in 1929 (at the beginning of WW2) to extend rules of humane conduct to the treatment of prisoners of war. This third Geneva Convention is the best known of the four, and is what people refer to when they say "the Geneva Convention" in the singular. The most widely known offenders of this third convention are the horrible concentration camps of Nazi Germany; the war crimes trials that followed WW2 made the term "Geneva Convention" a household name. A fourth convention was held in 1949 to protect noncombatant civilians from the horrors of war.
When the United States under George W. Bush invaded Iraq under Saddam Hussein, a problem quickly arose. The enemy soldiers were quickly defeated when they fought as the Geneva definition of "soldiers", and instead abandoned their uniforms and open opposition for subtle antagonism and terrorism. As they no longer qualified as soldiers in combat, they no longer qualified as prisoners of war under the 3rd Geneva Convention.
To be a soldier under Geneva, one must either belong to an official armed forces or militia for a government or other central authority or meet four other requirements:
But the war dragged on. Facing public pressure, the Bush Administration established a military tribunal system for trying the enemy combatants. In 2006 the Supreme Court ruled that the process violated US military law and the Geneva Conventions, specifically declaring these violations of :
The previous system having thus been eliminated, Congress passed and Bush signed a new system by the name The Military Commissions Act of 2006. Two years later, a part of this process was declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court, specifically the part where detainees of Guantanamo Bay Detention Center were not eligible for trial by the US civil justice system. This ruling occurred in June of 2008, only months before Barack Obama's election.
Obama, as a candidate, denounced the existing mess of a policy and promised, as President, "to distinguish between those prisoners who should be prosecuted for their crimes, those who can't be prosecuted but who can be held in a manner consistent with the laws of war, and those who should be released or transferred to their home countries." Almost immediately after his election (21 Jan 09), he made a powerful move toward that end: he suspended all the military commissions for 120 days to give the administration "time to review the military commissions process, generally, and the cases currently before military commissions, specifically."
On 15 May 09, just days before military tribunals would continue, the Obama Administration announced it was instituting a system of military tribunals. It denounced "the Military Commissions Act that was drafted by the Bush Administration and passed by Congress" that "had only succeeded in prosecuting three suspected terrorists in more than seven years." It announced the administration's intent to "ensure swift and certain justice against those detainees" and to "seek more time to allow us time to reform the military commission process." and concluded that "These reforms will begin to restore the Commissions as a legitimate forum for prosecution, while bringing them in line with the rule of law."
While the White House is calling it a wholesale change in approach, human rights advocates are furious, calling it a continuation of the inhumane Bush policies. Specifically, they oppose the impression given that the Military Commissions Act was generally on the right track though wrong on specifics. One legal expert disapproved that Obama's plan lacked provisions for "detainees [to] have the opportunity to employee a civilian lawyer from their own country."
The announcement gives Congress 60 days to offer opinions and advice on how to reform the system, but it went into effect 60 days after the announcement whether altered or not. That deadline expired on July 14th. The superficially altered "Bush-era relic" is currently being used to try detainees.
Most will consider this a failing of Obama's ability to enact moral policies, perhaps even a flaw in his respect for human rights. I disagree. His respect for human rights stands as powerfully as ever. It is his respect for the legal complexity of the situation that has changed; in fact, it has grown. Where his rhetoric as a candidate spoke of the absolute moral choice and Bush's flawed choice, the reality of the situation requires implementing the choice and suffering it's effects. Bush was responding ably to a surprising, overwhelming issue, adapting the policy gradually toward a policy that would work. Obama assumed (or at least claimed) Bush's gradual adaptation was a moral failure; in essence, that Bush should have got it right the first try regardless of all circumstances. When faced with the same complexity and responsibility Bush had faced, Obama now sees that he can only put the final touches on a Bush creation that was adapted extremely well to the circumstances.
Sure, it'd have been preferable to have the finished work in 2002. But it was a puzzle that had to be solved, and the solving of it necessitated time spent. In the race for a winning policy, Bush didn't run a 4-minute mile. But he ran the distance, and in a respectable time. It speaks to Obama's naïveté that he judged Bush's attempt at a higher standard than Obama himself could achieve. His rhetoric is greater than his ability.
Thus, I count this issue as a mark against Obama, not because his policy is wrong but because he failed to contrast with the policy he denounced. Either his rhetoric is an ambitious lie or he has failed just as his predecessor did. Either is a mark against him.
Your biblical thought for the day is Matt 7:2. "with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged." It applies all over this issue.
A new convention was held in Geneva in 1929 (at the beginning of WW2) to extend rules of humane conduct to the treatment of prisoners of war. This third Geneva Convention is the best known of the four, and is what people refer to when they say "the Geneva Convention" in the singular. The most widely known offenders of this third convention are the horrible concentration camps of Nazi Germany; the war crimes trials that followed WW2 made the term "Geneva Convention" a household name. A fourth convention was held in 1949 to protect noncombatant civilians from the horrors of war.
When the United States under George W. Bush invaded Iraq under Saddam Hussein, a problem quickly arose. The enemy soldiers were quickly defeated when they fought as the Geneva definition of "soldiers", and instead abandoned their uniforms and open opposition for subtle antagonism and terrorism. As they no longer qualified as soldiers in combat, they no longer qualified as prisoners of war under the 3rd Geneva Convention.
To be a soldier under Geneva, one must either belong to an official armed forces or militia for a government or other central authority or meet four other requirements:
- be accountable to a commander.
- wear a uniform that demonstrates your allegiance from a distance.
- carry weapons openly.
- follow the laws of war.
But the war dragged on. Facing public pressure, the Bush Administration established a military tribunal system for trying the enemy combatants. In 2006 the Supreme Court ruled that the process violated US military law and the Geneva Conventions, specifically declaring these violations of :
These grievances against due process were ruled to violate Article 3 of Geneva requirement for "all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."
- The defendant and the defendant's attorney may be forbidden to view certain evidence used against the defendant; the defendant's attorney may be forbidden to discuss certain evidence with the defendant;
- Evidence judged to have any probative value may be admitted, including hearsay, unsworn live testimony, and statements gathered through torture; and
- Appeals are not heard by courts, but only within the Executive Branch
The previous system having thus been eliminated, Congress passed and Bush signed a new system by the name The Military Commissions Act of 2006. Two years later, a part of this process was declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court, specifically the part where detainees of Guantanamo Bay Detention Center were not eligible for trial by the US civil justice system. This ruling occurred in June of 2008, only months before Barack Obama's election.
Obama, as a candidate, denounced the existing mess of a policy and promised, as President, "to distinguish between those prisoners who should be prosecuted for their crimes, those who can't be prosecuted but who can be held in a manner consistent with the laws of war, and those who should be released or transferred to their home countries." Almost immediately after his election (21 Jan 09), he made a powerful move toward that end: he suspended all the military commissions for 120 days to give the administration "time to review the military commissions process, generally, and the cases currently before military commissions, specifically."
On 15 May 09, just days before military tribunals would continue, the Obama Administration announced it was instituting a system of military tribunals. It denounced "the Military Commissions Act that was drafted by the Bush Administration and passed by Congress" that "had only succeeded in prosecuting three suspected terrorists in more than seven years." It announced the administration's intent to "ensure swift and certain justice against those detainees" and to "seek more time to allow us time to reform the military commission process." and concluded that "These reforms will begin to restore the Commissions as a legitimate forum for prosecution, while bringing them in line with the rule of law."
While the White House is calling it a wholesale change in approach, human rights advocates are furious, calling it a continuation of the inhumane Bush policies. Specifically, they oppose the impression given that the Military Commissions Act was generally on the right track though wrong on specifics. One legal expert disapproved that Obama's plan lacked provisions for "detainees [to] have the opportunity to employee a civilian lawyer from their own country."
The announcement gives Congress 60 days to offer opinions and advice on how to reform the system, but it went into effect 60 days after the announcement whether altered or not. That deadline expired on July 14th. The superficially altered "Bush-era relic" is currently being used to try detainees.
Most will consider this a failing of Obama's ability to enact moral policies, perhaps even a flaw in his respect for human rights. I disagree. His respect for human rights stands as powerfully as ever. It is his respect for the legal complexity of the situation that has changed; in fact, it has grown. Where his rhetoric as a candidate spoke of the absolute moral choice and Bush's flawed choice, the reality of the situation requires implementing the choice and suffering it's effects. Bush was responding ably to a surprising, overwhelming issue, adapting the policy gradually toward a policy that would work. Obama assumed (or at least claimed) Bush's gradual adaptation was a moral failure; in essence, that Bush should have got it right the first try regardless of all circumstances. When faced with the same complexity and responsibility Bush had faced, Obama now sees that he can only put the final touches on a Bush creation that was adapted extremely well to the circumstances.
Sure, it'd have been preferable to have the finished work in 2002. But it was a puzzle that had to be solved, and the solving of it necessitated time spent. In the race for a winning policy, Bush didn't run a 4-minute mile. But he ran the distance, and in a respectable time. It speaks to Obama's naïveté that he judged Bush's attempt at a higher standard than Obama himself could achieve. His rhetoric is greater than his ability.
Thus, I count this issue as a mark against Obama, not because his policy is wrong but because he failed to contrast with the policy he denounced. Either his rhetoric is an ambitious lie or he has failed just as his predecessor did. Either is a mark against him.
Your biblical thought for the day is Matt 7:2. "with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged." It applies all over this issue.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Comparing Apples to Apples in Health Care II
My first Apples to Apples post is here.
Often, the health care systems of various nations are compared by infant mortality rates, a scale upon which the United States ranks badly. But the comparison is awash with inconsistencies that distort the national scores based on the national rules of self-assessment. Some examples of regional rules:
Once again, the claims that the American health care system is a national shame are discredited. Remind me, why is it we're so convinced it needs major reforms?
Note: This article was also posted on my new blog site. It's still very rough and incomplete, but it allows users to sign up and leave comments. Unlike this blog, it even has a mechanism to quote from the article and others' comments.
Often, the health care systems of various nations are compared by infant mortality rates, a scale upon which the United States ranks badly. But the comparison is awash with inconsistencies that distort the national scores based on the national rules of self-assessment. Some examples of regional rules:
- the U.S. tabulates every birth, even in poor, small and remote areas, while other countries are not always so meticulous.
- We also count every baby who shows any sign of life, irrespective of size or weight at birth.
- much of Europe treats babies born before 26 weeks' gestation who later die as miscarriages rather than infant deaths.
- Switzerland only counts babies who are at least 30 centimeters long (11.8 inches) as being born alive, thus disqualifying smaller babies from infant mortality numbers.
- Along the same lines, Canada, Austria and Germany only count babies weighing at least a pound as live births.
- many industrialized nations, such as France, Hong Kong and Japan don't count infant deaths that occur in the 24 hours after birth. About half of infant mortality in the USA takes place in that same one-day period.
Once again, the claims that the American health care system is a national shame are discredited. Remind me, why is it we're so convinced it needs major reforms?
Note: This article was also posted on my new blog site. It's still very rough and incomplete, but it allows users to sign up and leave comments. Unlike this blog, it even has a mechanism to quote from the article and others' comments.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Is the Health Care Overhaul Constitutional?
Even FactCheck.org was unable to answer that question definitively. I obviously oppose the health care reforms being considered.
The FactCheck.org analysis makes both sides of the issue sound pretty rational and reasonable, with one major exception:
Money is material security. Economics is how people attain material security. Purely economic liberty empowers one to protect one's own personal and bodily integrity. To impose upon economics liberties is a little push toward naked, homeless starvation. You cannot separate economic and personal liberties. Like energy and matter, they are phases of the same thing.
How is health insurance more directly related to personal, bodily integrity than cash money? The major difference I see is the difference between cash money and a food stamps or gift cards: one can be used for anything, while the other is limited. Also, food stamps and health insurance cost radically more to oversee and implement, so you get less out of it than you put into it. The generalized, low-cost version works better.
I'm absolutely convinced that forcing people to be consumers to a particular industry is wrong. I'm strongly confident (though not absolutely) it should be unconstitutional, but I'm a little doubtful that it actually will be declared unconstitutional. I far prefer it simply lose out in Congress, preventing it from consideration in the Supreme Court. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it'd be better for it to be considered by SCOTUS while it has this kind of chance of being declared unconstitutional rather than in some socialist future where opposition to centralized economic control has collapsed.
Save us from government's good intentions!
The FactCheck.org analysis makes both sides of the issue sound pretty rational and reasonable, with one major exception:
Mark Hall, professor of law and public health at Wake Forest University’s law school, writes that there is no fundamental right to be uninsured. "The liberty in question is purely economic and has none of the strong elements of personal or bodily integrity that invoke constitutional protection," he says.The sentence in bold is terribly ominous. It is horrifying to me that the right to property ("purely economic" liberty) is considered so easily divisible from the right to life ("personal or bodily integrity"). Bodily integrity is protected, day by day, by such material goods as clothes, shelter, seat belts, etc. These things are in turn provided by money, a purely economic entity. The core purpose of money is that we cannot possibly know every material good we may need in the future, so we have a general, all-purpose good that can be exchanged for whatever object fills whatever needs may arise.
Money is material security. Economics is how people attain material security. Purely economic liberty empowers one to protect one's own personal and bodily integrity. To impose upon economics liberties is a little push toward naked, homeless starvation. You cannot separate economic and personal liberties. Like energy and matter, they are phases of the same thing.
How is health insurance more directly related to personal, bodily integrity than cash money? The major difference I see is the difference between cash money and a food stamps or gift cards: one can be used for anything, while the other is limited. Also, food stamps and health insurance cost radically more to oversee and implement, so you get less out of it than you put into it. The generalized, low-cost version works better.
I'm absolutely convinced that forcing people to be consumers to a particular industry is wrong. I'm strongly confident (though not absolutely) it should be unconstitutional, but I'm a little doubtful that it actually will be declared unconstitutional. I far prefer it simply lose out in Congress, preventing it from consideration in the Supreme Court. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it'd be better for it to be considered by SCOTUS while it has this kind of chance of being declared unconstitutional rather than in some socialist future where opposition to centralized economic control has collapsed.
Save us from government's good intentions!
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Obameter #174: Speaking to Islam
Dang, that's a good speech!
I heard a small part of Obama's April speech to the Turkish Parliament on the radio the day it happened. I read it again just now, to renew my impressions. Both times, my strongest impression was "That's a good speech."
The speech was given at 3:30 PM Turkey time, which is 9 hours later my native Mountain time. So that's 6:30 AM to me.
Obama promised to reach out to the Muslim world with such a speech, and in that he clearly delivered. I'm going to go through it one more time, watching for specific points of interesting history, partisanship, or of stretching the truth for political ends.
"Turkey is an important part of Europe. […] So let me be clear: The United States strongly supports Turkey's bid to become a member of the European Union."
• Turkey has been fighting a controversial battle to be accepted as an official part of Europe and it's Union as long as such international organizations have existed. It's membership is supported by the UK, Greese, and Sweden, but opposed by Austria by habit (they were a historic bulwark against the old Ottoman Empire) and France on the basis that it expands the borders of Europe (only a small part of Turkey is actually on the European continent). There are also concerns about waves of Muslim immigrants (France recently had serious problems an unruly subset of their Muslim population seemingly enforcing Sharia law on non-Muslims by vigilante violence) and the sudden great strength Turkey would have as the second largest body of MEPs, which representatives are proportional to national population.
"This morning I had the great privilege of visiting the tomb of your extraordinary founder of your republic. […] His greatest legacy is Turkey's strong, vibrant, secular democracy"
• Mustafa Kemal Atatürk first made a name for himself as a WW1 military commander for the Central Powers (for Americans, Brits, and Canadians that's "the other side"). The Central Powers didn't handle their defeat and the harsh sanctions levied against them very well. Most famously, Hitler led a surge of nationalist sentiment in Germany known by the abbreviation "Nazi." Atatürk, too, led a surge of nationalist sentiment in his native Turkey. In dramatic contrast to Hitler's Germany, Atatürk's national revolution was based on the principles of enlightenment philosophy and secular democracy (much like the USA's). The Kemalist ideology he originated is remarkably similar to a European parliamentary republic. It's not quite the diverse melting-pot that the USA is, but it's a remarkably strong democracy. It is one of the freest nations in the Muslim world.
"Turkey's democracy is your own achievement. It was not forced upon you by any outside power"
• There's a little criticism of the Republican hawk position that war in Iraq will provide democracy. There was, however, an attempt at an Iraqi revolution in Shia southeast in the early 90s, just after the invasion of Kuwait was repelled. Negotiations were allegedly made between them and the American diplomats for the USA to provide weapons and aid to the cause much like France did in the American Revolution. The difference was that with a change of President the US government changed policies on providing aid to foreign rebellions. Without the promised aid, the rebellion was crushed. Having thwarted the home-grown revolution, don't we then have some moral responsibility to restore it?
"Now, my country's democracy has its own story. […] I can see the Washington Monument from the window of the White House every day. […] Over time, more and more people contributed to help make this monument the inspiring structure that still stands tall today. Among those who came to our aid were friends from […] Istanbul. Ottoman Sultan Abdulmecid sent a marble plaque […] Inscribed […] with a few simple words: 'So as to strengthen the friendship between the two countries.' Over 150 years have passed since those words were carved into marble. Our nations have changed in many ways. But our friendship is strong, and our alliance endures."
• Cool story, and one I hadn't heard before. Good rhetorical use of it, too, wielding it to strengthen the alliance between the USA and Turkey.
"the future will be shaped by fear or by freedom; by poverty or by prosperity; by strife or by a just, secure and lasting peace."
• More realistically, the future will be shaped by both of each of those pairs in some proportion, and the hope is that there will be more of the latter and less of the former. It's unrealistic to expect a complete extinction of fear, poverty, or strife. It's a minor quibble, though.
"This much is certain: No one nation can confront these challenges alone, and all nations have a stake in overcoming them. That is why we must listen to one another, and seek common ground. That is why we must build on our mutual interests, and rise above our differences. We are stronger when we act together."
• I'm not so paranoid as to see New World Order conspiracies behind these statements, but I know there are people who will.
"America and Turkey are working with the G20 on an unprecedented response to an unprecedented economic crisis."
• As I've mentioned before, the unemployment rate after the stimulus is dramatically worse than was predicted by the Obama Administration if their stimulus was not implemented. It's up to 9.8% in September. That seems to suggest the unprecedented response is an unprecedented failure. I wonder how Turkey's and other international efforts are doing. Incidentally, that source for the unemployment rate also says the rate is the worst since 1983 -- when Reagan dramatically cut taxes and attempted to cut non-military spending to reverse a combination of unemployment and inflation. You know, exactly the opposite approach Obama is using.
"We should build on our Clean Technology Fund to leverage efficiency and renewable energy investments in Turkey. And to power markets in Turkey and Europe, the United States will continue to support your central role as an East-West corridor for oil and natural gas."
• In other words, we'll continue to spend money to make your major industries of oil and natural gas shipping obsolete. It takes great talent to threaten someone in such a way that they feel more secure hearing it.
"Europe gains by the diversity of ethnicity, tradition and faith -- it is not diminished by it."
• Amen.
"In the last several years, you've abolished state security courts, you've expanded the right to counsel. You've reformed the penal code and strengthened laws that govern the freedom of the press and assembly."
• Turkey has never really been a liberal democracy in the sense of constitutional civil rights. State security courts were something akin to military tribunals over civilian crimes; you know, the kind of thing that exaggerated claims about the USA PATRIOT Act claimed would happen to terrorism suspects. Except it was the literal policy as implemented. Reforming that was obviously good. Implementing trial by jury would also appeal to me, but that reform isn't very likely in Turkey. Still, they are definitely improving.
"An enduring commitment to the rule of law is the only way to achieve the security that comes from justice for all people. Robust minority rights let societies benefit from the full measure of contributions from all citizens."
• Absolutely true.
"An open border would return the Turkish and Armenian people to a peaceful and prosperous coexistence that would serve both of your nations."
• Turkey and Armenia were enemies in WW1, with Armenian troops aiding the Russian Army in crushing the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman was divided among various Allied nations, then restored to nationhood by the war of independence I mentioned before.
"[Turkey] can play a constructive role in helping to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which has continued for far too long."
• A small section of the Caucasian nation of Azerbaijan called Nagorno-Karabakh wants to secede from Azerbaijan largely at the behest of the Armenian ethnic majority in the region. This is all right near the Turkish border, perhaps as far as Florida to Cuba. An undeclared war was fought there for years until an official declaration of war in 1992. The war officially ended in 1994 with a Russian-brokered ceasefire and continuing peace talks. Tensions have risen and threats issued all through 2008, indicating peace talks taking a turn for the worse. It seems... subjective for Obama to call it a continuing war. Maybe he's playing to local sentiment. Or maybe he's just oversimplifying.
"The United States is willing to offer all the help sought by the parties as they work towards a just and lasting settlement that reunifies Cyprus into a bizonal and bicommunal federation."
• Turkey is the only nation in the world that recognizes Northern Cyprus as an independent nation. A coup was attempted by ethnically Greek Cypriots, triggering a Turkish invasion, which lead to a standoff where Turkey recognizes an independent nation and everyone else sees a region of the existing Republic of Cyprus. Turkey, apparently with approval from the USA, seeks a federation of two "zones", one ethnically Greek and one Turkish, federalized into one nation. Apparently the idea of a melting pot only applies to our own nation, not to our allies.
"The United States strongly supports the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. That is a goal shared by Palestinians, Israelis, and people of goodwill around the world."
• It's a great solution, except for the unsolvable problem of drawing borders, especially pertaining to Jerusalem. Both sides would rather fight than lose exclusive control over Jerusalem, which both sides cannot hold at the same time. That's why the peace talks never go anywhere. Only by waiting perpetually can peace talks avoid this issue and, thus, avoid open war. Unless one side gives up.
Reminds me of the sword dual at the end of Pirates of the Caribbean. "So what now, Jack? Are we to be two immortals locked in an epic battle until Judgment Day and trumpets sound?" "Or you could surrender." I think a more accurate view of the American position on the issue is "Knock it off already!"
"The peace of the region will also be advanced if Iran forgoes any nuclear weapons ambitions."
• It amuses me how Iranian nuclear ambitions are just a rumor perpetuated by Cheney and the neocons to stir up trouble... until Obama gets security clearance. Then it's accepted fact.
" Iraq, Turkey, and the United States face a common threat from terrorism. That includes the al Qaeda terrorists who have sought to drive Iraqis apart and destroy their country. That includes the PKK."
• The PKK is the Kurdistan Worker's Party ("Partiya Karkerên Kurdistan" in Kurdish). It's basically a socialist, militant extremist version of the Kurdish separatists common to the Turkish/Iraqi border region extending a little into Syria and Iran. The people Saddam Hussein bombed with chemical weapons -- this is the radical, violent, nutball version of those guys. They are listed as a terrorist organization by the USA, UN, NATO, and the European Union. Their supporters also protested the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Because the US and the Kurds of northern Iraq are strong allies in the War in Iraq, there hasn't been a lot of US effort expended against the Kurdish extremists near the border. Apparently, that's what Obama is suggesting will change.
"There's an old Turkish proverb: 'You cannot put out fire with flames.' America knows this. Turkey knows this. There's some who must be met by force, they will not compromise. But force alone cannot solve our problems, and it is no alternative to extremism. The future must belong to those who create, not those who destroy."
• Great message. I'm tempted to call the epic economic stimulus spending and over-regulation of the health care and energy industries "destructive" and turn this principle against it's speaker. I really like the use of a local proverb, a la Ronald "Trust, but verify." Reagan.
"This is not where East and West divide -- this is where they come together."
• If rhetoric were still taught in school (like it should be), this could be a lesson unto itself.
All in all, it's a great speech. Obama is still Obama, ideologically and stylistically. But it's strong, persuasive, and filled with good stuff. It made me research a lot of Turkish history, which was interesting. Even under my critical eye, it persuades me to value Turkey as a rich culture and a valuable American ally.
I can't help but admit, George W. Bush should've done some of this kind of outreach to the moderate Muslim world. Not the BS liberal internationalism, but the praise of the best traits of the best nations in the region. It would have gone a long way to diffusing the constant-but-baseless criticisms of him. Good job, President Obama.
I heard a small part of Obama's April speech to the Turkish Parliament on the radio the day it happened. I read it again just now, to renew my impressions. Both times, my strongest impression was "That's a good speech."
The speech was given at 3:30 PM Turkey time, which is 9 hours later my native Mountain time. So that's 6:30 AM to me.
Obama promised to reach out to the Muslim world with such a speech, and in that he clearly delivered. I'm going to go through it one more time, watching for specific points of interesting history, partisanship, or of stretching the truth for political ends.
"Turkey is an important part of Europe. […] So let me be clear: The United States strongly supports Turkey's bid to become a member of the European Union."
• Turkey has been fighting a controversial battle to be accepted as an official part of Europe and it's Union as long as such international organizations have existed. It's membership is supported by the UK, Greese, and Sweden, but opposed by Austria by habit (they were a historic bulwark against the old Ottoman Empire) and France on the basis that it expands the borders of Europe (only a small part of Turkey is actually on the European continent). There are also concerns about waves of Muslim immigrants (France recently had serious problems an unruly subset of their Muslim population seemingly enforcing Sharia law on non-Muslims by vigilante violence) and the sudden great strength Turkey would have as the second largest body of MEPs, which representatives are proportional to national population.
"This morning I had the great privilege of visiting the tomb of your extraordinary founder of your republic. […] His greatest legacy is Turkey's strong, vibrant, secular democracy"
• Mustafa Kemal Atatürk first made a name for himself as a WW1 military commander for the Central Powers (for Americans, Brits, and Canadians that's "the other side"). The Central Powers didn't handle their defeat and the harsh sanctions levied against them very well. Most famously, Hitler led a surge of nationalist sentiment in Germany known by the abbreviation "Nazi." Atatürk, too, led a surge of nationalist sentiment in his native Turkey. In dramatic contrast to Hitler's Germany, Atatürk's national revolution was based on the principles of enlightenment philosophy and secular democracy (much like the USA's). The Kemalist ideology he originated is remarkably similar to a European parliamentary republic. It's not quite the diverse melting-pot that the USA is, but it's a remarkably strong democracy. It is one of the freest nations in the Muslim world.
"Turkey's democracy is your own achievement. It was not forced upon you by any outside power"
• There's a little criticism of the Republican hawk position that war in Iraq will provide democracy. There was, however, an attempt at an Iraqi revolution in Shia southeast in the early 90s, just after the invasion of Kuwait was repelled. Negotiations were allegedly made between them and the American diplomats for the USA to provide weapons and aid to the cause much like France did in the American Revolution. The difference was that with a change of President the US government changed policies on providing aid to foreign rebellions. Without the promised aid, the rebellion was crushed. Having thwarted the home-grown revolution, don't we then have some moral responsibility to restore it?
"Now, my country's democracy has its own story. […] I can see the Washington Monument from the window of the White House every day. […] Over time, more and more people contributed to help make this monument the inspiring structure that still stands tall today. Among those who came to our aid were friends from […] Istanbul. Ottoman Sultan Abdulmecid sent a marble plaque […] Inscribed […] with a few simple words: 'So as to strengthen the friendship between the two countries.' Over 150 years have passed since those words were carved into marble. Our nations have changed in many ways. But our friendship is strong, and our alliance endures."
• Cool story, and one I hadn't heard before. Good rhetorical use of it, too, wielding it to strengthen the alliance between the USA and Turkey.
"the future will be shaped by fear or by freedom; by poverty or by prosperity; by strife or by a just, secure and lasting peace."
• More realistically, the future will be shaped by both of each of those pairs in some proportion, and the hope is that there will be more of the latter and less of the former. It's unrealistic to expect a complete extinction of fear, poverty, or strife. It's a minor quibble, though.
"This much is certain: No one nation can confront these challenges alone, and all nations have a stake in overcoming them. That is why we must listen to one another, and seek common ground. That is why we must build on our mutual interests, and rise above our differences. We are stronger when we act together."
• I'm not so paranoid as to see New World Order conspiracies behind these statements, but I know there are people who will.
"America and Turkey are working with the G20 on an unprecedented response to an unprecedented economic crisis."
• As I've mentioned before, the unemployment rate after the stimulus is dramatically worse than was predicted by the Obama Administration if their stimulus was not implemented. It's up to 9.8% in September. That seems to suggest the unprecedented response is an unprecedented failure. I wonder how Turkey's and other international efforts are doing. Incidentally, that source for the unemployment rate also says the rate is the worst since 1983 -- when Reagan dramatically cut taxes and attempted to cut non-military spending to reverse a combination of unemployment and inflation. You know, exactly the opposite approach Obama is using.
"We should build on our Clean Technology Fund to leverage efficiency and renewable energy investments in Turkey. And to power markets in Turkey and Europe, the United States will continue to support your central role as an East-West corridor for oil and natural gas."
• In other words, we'll continue to spend money to make your major industries of oil and natural gas shipping obsolete. It takes great talent to threaten someone in such a way that they feel more secure hearing it.
"Europe gains by the diversity of ethnicity, tradition and faith -- it is not diminished by it."
• Amen.
"In the last several years, you've abolished state security courts, you've expanded the right to counsel. You've reformed the penal code and strengthened laws that govern the freedom of the press and assembly."
• Turkey has never really been a liberal democracy in the sense of constitutional civil rights. State security courts were something akin to military tribunals over civilian crimes; you know, the kind of thing that exaggerated claims about the USA PATRIOT Act claimed would happen to terrorism suspects. Except it was the literal policy as implemented. Reforming that was obviously good. Implementing trial by jury would also appeal to me, but that reform isn't very likely in Turkey. Still, they are definitely improving.
"An enduring commitment to the rule of law is the only way to achieve the security that comes from justice for all people. Robust minority rights let societies benefit from the full measure of contributions from all citizens."
• Absolutely true.
"An open border would return the Turkish and Armenian people to a peaceful and prosperous coexistence that would serve both of your nations."
• Turkey and Armenia were enemies in WW1, with Armenian troops aiding the Russian Army in crushing the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman was divided among various Allied nations, then restored to nationhood by the war of independence I mentioned before.
"[Turkey] can play a constructive role in helping to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which has continued for far too long."
• A small section of the Caucasian nation of Azerbaijan called Nagorno-Karabakh wants to secede from Azerbaijan largely at the behest of the Armenian ethnic majority in the region. This is all right near the Turkish border, perhaps as far as Florida to Cuba. An undeclared war was fought there for years until an official declaration of war in 1992. The war officially ended in 1994 with a Russian-brokered ceasefire and continuing peace talks. Tensions have risen and threats issued all through 2008, indicating peace talks taking a turn for the worse. It seems... subjective for Obama to call it a continuing war. Maybe he's playing to local sentiment. Or maybe he's just oversimplifying.
"The United States is willing to offer all the help sought by the parties as they work towards a just and lasting settlement that reunifies Cyprus into a bizonal and bicommunal federation."
• Turkey is the only nation in the world that recognizes Northern Cyprus as an independent nation. A coup was attempted by ethnically Greek Cypriots, triggering a Turkish invasion, which lead to a standoff where Turkey recognizes an independent nation and everyone else sees a region of the existing Republic of Cyprus. Turkey, apparently with approval from the USA, seeks a federation of two "zones", one ethnically Greek and one Turkish, federalized into one nation. Apparently the idea of a melting pot only applies to our own nation, not to our allies.
"The United States strongly supports the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. That is a goal shared by Palestinians, Israelis, and people of goodwill around the world."
• It's a great solution, except for the unsolvable problem of drawing borders, especially pertaining to Jerusalem. Both sides would rather fight than lose exclusive control over Jerusalem, which both sides cannot hold at the same time. That's why the peace talks never go anywhere. Only by waiting perpetually can peace talks avoid this issue and, thus, avoid open war. Unless one side gives up.
Reminds me of the sword dual at the end of Pirates of the Caribbean. "So what now, Jack? Are we to be two immortals locked in an epic battle until Judgment Day and trumpets sound?" "Or you could surrender." I think a more accurate view of the American position on the issue is "Knock it off already!"
"The peace of the region will also be advanced if Iran forgoes any nuclear weapons ambitions."
• It amuses me how Iranian nuclear ambitions are just a rumor perpetuated by Cheney and the neocons to stir up trouble... until Obama gets security clearance. Then it's accepted fact.
" Iraq, Turkey, and the United States face a common threat from terrorism. That includes the al Qaeda terrorists who have sought to drive Iraqis apart and destroy their country. That includes the PKK."
• The PKK is the Kurdistan Worker's Party ("Partiya Karkerên Kurdistan" in Kurdish). It's basically a socialist, militant extremist version of the Kurdish separatists common to the Turkish/Iraqi border region extending a little into Syria and Iran. The people Saddam Hussein bombed with chemical weapons -- this is the radical, violent, nutball version of those guys. They are listed as a terrorist organization by the USA, UN, NATO, and the European Union. Their supporters also protested the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Because the US and the Kurds of northern Iraq are strong allies in the War in Iraq, there hasn't been a lot of US effort expended against the Kurdish extremists near the border. Apparently, that's what Obama is suggesting will change.
"There's an old Turkish proverb: 'You cannot put out fire with flames.' America knows this. Turkey knows this. There's some who must be met by force, they will not compromise. But force alone cannot solve our problems, and it is no alternative to extremism. The future must belong to those who create, not those who destroy."
• Great message. I'm tempted to call the epic economic stimulus spending and over-regulation of the health care and energy industries "destructive" and turn this principle against it's speaker. I really like the use of a local proverb, a la Ronald "Trust, but verify." Reagan.
"This is not where East and West divide -- this is where they come together."
• If rhetoric were still taught in school (like it should be), this could be a lesson unto itself.
All in all, it's a great speech. Obama is still Obama, ideologically and stylistically. But it's strong, persuasive, and filled with good stuff. It made me research a lot of Turkish history, which was interesting. Even under my critical eye, it persuades me to value Turkey as a rich culture and a valuable American ally.
I can't help but admit, George W. Bush should've done some of this kind of outreach to the moderate Muslim world. Not the BS liberal internationalism, but the praise of the best traits of the best nations in the region. It would have gone a long way to diffusing the constant-but-baseless criticisms of him. Good job, President Obama.
Fontopia
I've got a friend that's fairly obsessed with fonts, colors, photography, and design these days. He sent me a link to this game. Can you tell the difference between the real logo and the fake one? Yeah, I couldn't either. Statistically, I should've done slightly better if I were guessing at random.
He also showed me this Color IQ thing. Try to organize the colors into a perfect gradient by dragging them around with the mouse.
Yeah, he's nuts. He randomly provides me amusements from the intertubes, though. Can't complain about that.
He also showed me this Color IQ thing. Try to organize the colors into a perfect gradient by dragging them around with the mouse.
Yeah, he's nuts. He randomly provides me amusements from the intertubes, though. Can't complain about that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)