Comments on Toastmasters
Another weekend of wasted potential... or is it? As it turns out, I spent the weekend busily preparing for and running A/V stuff for the District 65 Toastmasters conference in Ithaca, NY. It was a stressful, confusing, and complicated enterprise, but far and away worth the lost hair and ulcers that will no doubt manifest themselves in the coming weeks.
Under the fearless leadership of Linda Tompkins and Laurie Hultberg, both of my own Ithaca Area Toastmasters club, we put together and executed an excellent conference, featuring DARREN LECROIX, 2001 WORLD CHAMPION INTERNATIONAL SPEAKER. I'm generally skeptical of celebrity, but he seemed decent and grounded enough. The conference schedule is available on the district website.
The conference consisted of two days of talks, workshops, banquets, and the like. Personally, one of the most important insight came from a conversation I had during the dinner banquet. A very articulate and intelligent tablemate (not a rare phenomenon in Toastmasters) pointed out that much of English language is focused on the negative, often concealed through grammatically nonsensical, prolific use of negative contractions: "don't", "can't", "won't", and the like. Specific examples escape me (perhaps because I somehow avoided the atrocious grammar that frequently characterizes California public school education), but I do remember quite distinctly certain colloquialisms that are absolutely nonsensical when "don't" is expanded into "do not". She has given me food for thought, something for which I am always grateful and, in the final analysis, is the long gray line between me becoming wise and the arrogance that is nearly the birthright of a twenty-something middle-class American.
For me, the best part of the conference consisted of Irish drinking songs and the testimonials of how Toastmasters has changed lives. When I first read about Toastmasters on Steve Pavlina's blog, I first assumed that this quasi-cult was something far less than the godsend that Mr. Pavlina made it appear in his blog.
I was pleasantly mistaken. Toastmasters has been far and away one of my most prized activities here in the wilds of upstate New York. Rather than surrounding myself with upper-middle class academic types 24/7, I have the distinct pleasure of learning from and with individuals who may lack a billion letters after their names, but are among the wisest, most compassionate, and most articulate individuals I have ever known. I am truly in their debt, and hope that I contribute in some small way to the advancement of the club and the enrichment of their own lives.
Should you have the desire to improve your public speaking and meet interesting individuals from the community, I highly recommend Toastmasters to you.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Presidential Candidacy Acceptance Speech at the PBS National Convention
(delivered at PBS National Convention, Denver, CO, Thursday, Nov. 1, 2007)
Ladies and gentlemen, nominators, members of the press, big oil, celebrities, despotic warlords, my fellow Americans... I humbly and graciously accept your nomination for the presidential candidacy of the United States. I am proud to represent the Party for a Beautiful Society, dedicated since 1798 to abolishing from the Americas ugly people of all races, creeds, genders, and sexual orientations. As I gaze out into the stands of tans, silicone implants, botox lips and lipo hips, I am tremendously proud of how far America has come these many years.
America is great for many reasons. It is great because of the rule of law. I wish to congratulate the Party for a Beautiful Society and the PBS chairman for his successful trademark infringement suit against the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. As we speak, law enforcement officials are storming Sesame Street offices, repossessing Ernie's rubber duckie, evicting Oscar the Grouch from his garbage can, sending Cookie Monster to the Betty Ford Clinic (where he can get the help he needs and deserves), and arresting Elmo on charges of tickle solicitation of minors.
America is also great because of our free markets. Where else but America can you find a nation that spends as much on plastic surgery, weight loss, cosmetics, and manicures as our federal government spends on education, and as much as the entire GDP of Kazakhstan?
But it is great especially because of our commitment to democracy. In that spirit, my runningmate and I will tattoo our campaign slogan - Beauty, Manliness, Codependency - to the body part that receives the most votes on the poll available on our campaign website, americahatesuggos.com
Beauty, Manliness, Codependency - what does it mean, exactly?
The beauty is self-evident. You beautiful, beautiful people have come from the beaches of California, from the tanning salons of South Carolina, from botox clubs in Connecticut and butt implant clinics in Texas. Yet America is facing a severe crisis - there is projected a shortage of beautiful people, and the people who maintain that beauty, as one generation of plastic surgeons, movie stars, and make-up research scientists retire. As president, I will make sure we expand our immigration application process to incorporate benefits for those who bring plastic surgery talent or cosmetic manufacturing, or the prime ingredient of attractiveness, good genes. I also pledge make cosmetic testing on humans mandatory. I also promise you a K-12 national make-up program, to be modeled after our public school free lunches, that will make ours, truly, a Great Society.
Across this country, people have asked me, Senator Yamada, how will you restore manliness to America? I'll tell you how I won't do this - by embracing the chauvinism of previous administrations. I promise you that as president, my cabinet will have more women than any in history. I'll go further- I pledge that it will be made exclusively of young, nubile women.
No, I believe that manliness must start at home before we seek to project it abroad with phallic cruise missiles. I pledge tonight to ensure that the legacy of my presidency will be unparalleled warfare between the branches of civil government, with the executive branch emerging bloody but unbowed after the first hundred days of partisan shock and awe.
In the days before the Civil War, it might be possible to find manly leaders like South Carolina Senator Brook, who in 1856 severely beat fellow Senator Sumner of Massachusetts with his cane on the Senate floor. I assure you that as president I will resurrect this ancient, manly tradition of mortal combat between our elected officials. I propose that we build a Supercolliding Senatorium, where the highest, most distinguished officials of the land will decide the issues of the day in a many demolition derby. And I promise you that we will not limit our destructive democratic derby to SUNDAY, SUNDAY, SUNDAY, but devote every working hour to the ideal the Greeks once articulated: truth is born from the collision of ideas - and the idea-doers.
And finally, codependency. Where would America - its families, its workplaces, its churches - be without codependency? Codependency has gotten a bad rap, mostly from the liberal academics and mainstream media. Codependency is the essence of a functioning democracy. Scientists tell us that the only thing keeping my Cro-Magnon, hormone-crazed mind from killing all male non-relatives in the room is my overpowering terror of being alone, unloved, and abandoned.
We are all codependent - this is a globalized economy. Now, we need to take the next step, and embrace codependent fiscal policy. Subprime? Sublime! I want every American to know that the government is like a loving parent - a willing, waiting, gentle cash machine, here to kiss all your boo-boos and make it better. Each individual must have the courage to invest his sense of self-worth in the opinions of others, in how he looks, and how much he makes, and shun the easy and familiar paths of character-building and independent reason. Only then can we become a united America, a closer America. Ladies and Gentlemen, tonight we sign this American Declaration of Codependence.
America is at a crossroads. At home our citizens are dispirited, frustrated, seeking direction, and angry about American Idol. My fellow Americans, we cannot let this continue.
If we are to be great, an Empire over which the sun does not set, we must build a space-based mega-magnifying glass, so that we may focus American will and the Sun's blessed rays in a terawatt beam of righteous fire to smite the evil-doers. If we are to be a nation without borders, we must conquer foreign soil until we are truly a world united under one system. And if we are to triumph over the Atlantian menace, we must extend our reach, too, to the undersea floor, by means of midget submarines, manned by our NBA all-stars, for in a mad age like ours, irony is our best defense against the undersea infidels.
You may elect me because I am sexy. And I will use my physical God-given gifts to seduce the leadership and movie stars of foreign nations to erect partnerships to cement American influence.
You may elect me because you think it would be interesting to have model minority Orientals in charge for a change. And I promise that my first act as President will be to rename the residence the Yellow House.
But I want you to support me, vote for me, bear arms for me, fight for me, have children for me, work for me, and die for me, because you genuinely believe that I am the best candidate, endowed with the arrogance, violence, ego, ambition, and psychedelic vision needed to lead this Empire for the term of my presidency... and, if our scientists should so bless us with the ability preserve my living floating head in a jar, for the next 1000 years of American hegemony, so help us God.
God save the American people from the enemies abroad and the ugly people at home. Thank you for this honor. Thank you for your love, and God bless America.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Returning to the blogosphere
After a long hiatus, I've decided that writing on a blog is a handy way to help refine my ideas. I have no idea if anyone reads this, nor does it really matter. What matters is the attempt to better frame, refine, and articulate ideas that are complicated, and yet require the attention and energy of all committed citizens.
To this end, I will begin by posting some recent articles/comments that appear on my Facebook page, but might potentially find interested parties here. Also going up will be my list of ten questions that will be the key questions of our age.
To this end, I will begin by posting some recent articles/comments that appear on my Facebook page, but might potentially find interested parties here. Also going up will be my list of ten questions that will be the key questions of our age.
Comments on talk - "The Traditional Non-Use of Nuclear Weapons"
Letter to Dr. T. V. Paul
Dr. T. V. Paul,
Thank you for an interesting and enlightening talk. I have had a bit of time to digest your talk, and want to share my thoughts on the two aspects of reputation that were brought up: deterrence and non-use. Granted, I'm not a political scientist and have little formal training - please bear with me as I articulate my thoughts.
My comments are organized along the following points:
1. Reputational benefits for non-use and deterrence, while in principle coming at the expense of each other, both depend upon the potential for actual use.
Reputation from both non-use and deterrence both stem from one fundamental assumption: that the weapons could credibly be used. Without the credible potential for use, a nation gains no reputational advantage for not using them. Only by being in a position of strength is nonagression seen as a benevolent action. A state gains no positive reputation unless (1) the weapons could be used, (2) the state might incur some tactical or strategic disadvantage from their nonuse, (3) the potential target or third parties recognize both (1) and (2).
2. I assume that the credible use of nuclear weapons by any of the major nation-states has decreased with time, especially after the end of the Cold War.
The reasons for this are many - the decrease in great powers defining the conflict with other powers in existential terms; increased interdependence for economic growth, increasingly seen as a good in its own right and a source of legitimacy and power for ruling elites; and, not the least among these, the acceptance of non-use as a norm. It is possible that the diminished perceived possiblity of the use of nuclear weapons by the US or the other four major nuclear states comes from a qualitative change in the international system, where actual dominance over another nation's land, resources, and people occurs in the economic sphere.
Alternatively, perhaps because of the issues associated with the passage of time that Judith Reppy and others brought up at your talk, the credible use of nuclear weapons may have diminished with time. I have read Hiroshima; my family is from the area, and have a fair idea of the physics and material substance of a nuclear weapon. However, it is very, very hard for me - perhaps because I was born in 1983 - to imagine the use of nuclear weapons by anyone other than a rogue state/terrorist organization. While at some level this is a good thing - it reflects the strength of the norm, or at least the image of a norm, it does lead to problems, which takes me to point 3.
3. With diminished credibility of the threat comes a decrease both in their deterrence value and in the reputation for non-use.
A difference may exist between non-use against other nuclear powers, non-use against non-nuclear powers, and non-use against non-state actors. I believe you mentioned this in your talk, and would love to hear more about this.
4. Instead of strengthening the norm of non-use, the diminished credibility leads to a decrease in relevance of nuclear weapons.
In particular, the reputational benefit nuclear weapons provide, either deterrence or non-use, is diminished. By contrast, the opportunity cost of continuing to fund nuclear weapons development and maintenance instead of other areas of potential investment has increased because of increased opportunities to invest outside of one's national borders.
5. To restore the relevance of nuclear weapons as a tool of policy, the US could modify its nuclear arsenal to increase the credibility of the nuclear threat to uncooperative nations.
The most obvious way of doing this is to lower the yield. Though conventional weapons have equivalent yields, nuclear weapons will still remain a distinctive threat precisely because of the remaining differences in the material (specifically, radiation) and constructed (historical legacy, images of radiation) natures of the bomb.
6. Scientists, elements of the Pentagon, and perhaps elements of other branches in American government may acceede to such a policy for distinct reasons, but which converge upon a policy of a low-yield tactical nuclear weapon:
Scientists
a. assumption that the norm will not be violated gives scientists a clear moral conscience
b. need to redefine institutional and professional relevance of nuclear stockpile and associated workforce after end of Cold War
c. absence of alternative work opportunities (in the short-term), pending commitment in money and policy to an energy policy incorporating a heavy investment in nuclear energy
Department of Defense
a. restore credibility of nuclear weapons as a tool of deterrence
b. institutional desire to retain budgets and priority for programs
Other Branches
a. a credible nuclear deterrent is seen as a low-cost alternative to a conventional buildup (rationale probably originates from Eisenhower's desire to balance budgets while maintaining an effective counterweight to Soviet expansionism)
b. nuclear weapons (and advanced technology in general) is easier to sell to the American public than an increase in the number of people in the armed services
Aside:
One of the interesting features of the behavioral economics course I am taking is the concrete experimental evidence that losses are felt more strongly than gains by individuals. Generalizing from the micro to macro picture, it's possible not only to say that an institution/group will defend strongly its existing resources/budgets, but that it will do so even when faced with alternatives that may in fact be slightly more beneficial. What is true for money is definitely true for work experience and training, one thing that I hope US workforce retraining initiatives take into account. (I was inspired by this when thinking about the personal difficulty I am having leaving research science for a career in policy.)
Other notes:
Attitudes to the use of nuclear weapons may differ between the military and civilians, but is far from definite and may fall along defense/diplomacy lines (i.e., State department officials may have more in common with a Sec State who happens to be a general than other civilians in the DoD). Interesting case studies would include individuals who had served in both miliitary and civilian capacities (George Marshall, Dwight Eisenhower, Colin Powell). It might be interesting to consult the literature on whether there is a difference between the uniformed individuals who serve as elected officials versus those appointed to civilian posts. Also, is there a selection effect - are the "right" generals more likely to be selected for civilian office?
-----
Historical aside:
A good illustration in the distinct personalities that exist within the military would be the contrast drawn between MacArthur and Eisenhower. There is a particularly vivid image of this, highlighted by Mark Perry in "Partners in Command", in which MacArthur's callous use of force and image of a commander surveying the battlefield is contrasted with Eisenhower's resigned, somber expression during the use of military
force against the "Bonus Army" of WWI veterans in the late Hoover administration. (image at http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefmedia/sharemed/targets/images/pho/t029/t029187a.jpg) Perry writes: "But the difference between the two was obvious for all who saw them at Anacostia Flats: 'There is MacArthur in full regalia, complete with several decks of ribbons, looking sternly upon the 'battlefield,; with the look of eagles in his eyes,' a reporter later reflected. 'Next to him is Ike, dressed in a regular unadorned uniform. If you take a close look at the expression on Eisenhower's face, you realize it is one of cold, caustic contempt. This is the closed Eisenhower, who later observed he had learned acting from MacArthur." (Perry, 48)
-----
Best of luck. I hope these comments have proven worth your time reading.
Cheers,
Ryan
Dr. T. V. Paul,
Thank you for an interesting and enlightening talk. I have had a bit of time to digest your talk, and want to share my thoughts on the two aspects of reputation that were brought up: deterrence and non-use. Granted, I'm not a political scientist and have little formal training - please bear with me as I articulate my thoughts.
My comments are organized along the following points:
1. Reputational benefits for non-use and deterrence, while in principle coming at the expense of each other, both depend upon the potential for actual use.
Reputation from both non-use and deterrence both stem from one fundamental assumption: that the weapons could credibly be used. Without the credible potential for use, a nation gains no reputational advantage for not using them. Only by being in a position of strength is nonagression seen as a benevolent action. A state gains no positive reputation unless (1) the weapons could be used, (2) the state might incur some tactical or strategic disadvantage from their nonuse, (3) the potential target or third parties recognize both (1) and (2).
2. I assume that the credible use of nuclear weapons by any of the major nation-states has decreased with time, especially after the end of the Cold War.
The reasons for this are many - the decrease in great powers defining the conflict with other powers in existential terms; increased interdependence for economic growth, increasingly seen as a good in its own right and a source of legitimacy and power for ruling elites; and, not the least among these, the acceptance of non-use as a norm. It is possible that the diminished perceived possiblity of the use of nuclear weapons by the US or the other four major nuclear states comes from a qualitative change in the international system, where actual dominance over another nation's land, resources, and people occurs in the economic sphere.
Alternatively, perhaps because of the issues associated with the passage of time that Judith Reppy and others brought up at your talk, the credible use of nuclear weapons may have diminished with time. I have read Hiroshima; my family is from the area, and have a fair idea of the physics and material substance of a nuclear weapon. However, it is very, very hard for me - perhaps because I was born in 1983 - to imagine the use of nuclear weapons by anyone other than a rogue state/terrorist organization. While at some level this is a good thing - it reflects the strength of the norm, or at least the image of a norm, it does lead to problems, which takes me to point 3.
3. With diminished credibility of the threat comes a decrease both in their deterrence value and in the reputation for non-use.
A difference may exist between non-use against other nuclear powers, non-use against non-nuclear powers, and non-use against non-state actors. I believe you mentioned this in your talk, and would love to hear more about this.
4. Instead of strengthening the norm of non-use, the diminished credibility leads to a decrease in relevance of nuclear weapons.
In particular, the reputational benefit nuclear weapons provide, either deterrence or non-use, is diminished. By contrast, the opportunity cost of continuing to fund nuclear weapons development and maintenance instead of other areas of potential investment has increased because of increased opportunities to invest outside of one's national borders.
5. To restore the relevance of nuclear weapons as a tool of policy, the US could modify its nuclear arsenal to increase the credibility of the nuclear threat to uncooperative nations.
The most obvious way of doing this is to lower the yield. Though conventional weapons have equivalent yields, nuclear weapons will still remain a distinctive threat precisely because of the remaining differences in the material (specifically, radiation) and constructed (historical legacy, images of radiation) natures of the bomb.
6. Scientists, elements of the Pentagon, and perhaps elements of other branches in American government may acceede to such a policy for distinct reasons, but which converge upon a policy of a low-yield tactical nuclear weapon:
Scientists
a. assumption that the norm will not be violated gives scientists a clear moral conscience
b. need to redefine institutional and professional relevance of nuclear stockpile and associated workforce after end of Cold War
c. absence of alternative work opportunities (in the short-term), pending commitment in money and policy to an energy policy incorporating a heavy investment in nuclear energy
Department of Defense
a. restore credibility of nuclear weapons as a tool of deterrence
b. institutional desire to retain budgets and priority for programs
Other Branches
a. a credible nuclear deterrent is seen as a low-cost alternative to a conventional buildup (rationale probably originates from Eisenhower's desire to balance budgets while maintaining an effective counterweight to Soviet expansionism)
b. nuclear weapons (and advanced technology in general) is easier to sell to the American public than an increase in the number of people in the armed services
Aside:
One of the interesting features of the behavioral economics course I am taking is the concrete experimental evidence that losses are felt more strongly than gains by individuals. Generalizing from the micro to macro picture, it's possible not only to say that an institution/group will defend strongly its existing resources/budgets, but that it will do so even when faced with alternatives that may in fact be slightly more beneficial. What is true for money is definitely true for work experience and training, one thing that I hope US workforce retraining initiatives take into account. (I was inspired by this when thinking about the personal difficulty I am having leaving research science for a career in policy.)
Other notes:
Attitudes to the use of nuclear weapons may differ between the military and civilians, but is far from definite and may fall along defense/diplomacy lines (i.e., State department officials may have more in common with a Sec State who happens to be a general than other civilians in the DoD). Interesting case studies would include individuals who had served in both miliitary and civilian capacities (George Marshall, Dwight Eisenhower, Colin Powell). It might be interesting to consult the literature on whether there is a difference between the uniformed individuals who serve as elected officials versus those appointed to civilian posts. Also, is there a selection effect - are the "right" generals more likely to be selected for civilian office?
-----
Historical aside:
A good illustration in the distinct personalities that exist within the military would be the contrast drawn between MacArthur and Eisenhower. There is a particularly vivid image of this, highlighted by Mark Perry in "Partners in Command", in which MacArthur's callous use of force and image of a commander surveying the battlefield is contrasted with Eisenhower's resigned, somber expression during the use of military
force against the "Bonus Army" of WWI veterans in the late Hoover administration. (image at http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefmedia/sharemed/targets/images/pho/t029/t029187a.jpg) Perry writes: "But the difference between the two was obvious for all who saw them at Anacostia Flats: 'There is MacArthur in full regalia, complete with several decks of ribbons, looking sternly upon the 'battlefield,; with the look of eagles in his eyes,' a reporter later reflected. 'Next to him is Ike, dressed in a regular unadorned uniform. If you take a close look at the expression on Eisenhower's face, you realize it is one of cold, caustic contempt. This is the closed Eisenhower, who later observed he had learned acting from MacArthur." (Perry, 48)
-----
Best of luck. I hope these comments have proven worth your time reading.
Cheers,
Ryan
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Consecration Sunday Speech
(delivered at St. Paul's United Methodist Church, Ithaca, NY, 7 Oct 2007)
Good morning everyone! My name is Ryan Yamada. I have the distinct privilege of announcing to this wonderful body of Christ that Consecration Sunday is this October 25! Consecration Sunday is a chance to ask ourselves what we feel compelled to give to God and His service, as so beautifully and remarkably demonstrated by all the good that comes from this faith community.
I've been asked to provide my own experiences in the Church and how I intend to approach Consecration Sunday, both of which I am happy to do.
About a year ago, you welcomed me into this congregation, and entrusted me with a most precious task - to help nurture and encourage the senior high students in confirmation class. I'm still amazed you let a virtual stranger do this - though Rebecca kept an eye on me to make sure no damage was done. I found the youth to be brilliant, kind, passionate, and most of all, generous in heart and spirit. I'm not sure what they got out of my presence, other than some wisecracks and enthusiastic support for the appreciation of caffeinated beverages. I found myself wondering, over and over again: why is it that these men and women are so awesome?
Credit goes to them of course, their friends and families, and God. But I think this spiritual community also played, and continues to play, a key role. During service, I'm often struck by a vision of a multi-generational construction project, in which you are building, brick by brick, an awesome sanctuary that extends far beyond these walls, and far beyond Sunday morning. From Buffalo Street to Bosnia, you extend comfort, nurture the spirit, and challenge hearts and minds to become stronger, wiser, and more loving. What you do demonstrates courage and conviction that can come only from loving something greater than yourself. It is here that I first felt the full force of 1 Cor 13:13 - "And now these three remain: faith, hope, and love, but the greatest of these is love."
Of course we’re not perfect. We are often failed saints, and all too often successful sinners; we have imperfect moral resumes. Even my flaws have flaws. But we do God's work as well as we can, however we can.
In so many ways I have trusted you with my heart and my soul; that decision to embrace this community has been one of the best of my life. It is therefore easy for me to trust this living church with what offerings I can give, for it is here that I see it work, in ways subtle and sublime.
We decide, as individuals, what we can give. Our reasons for giving are as complex and diverse as our reasons for coming here, and often remain unknown even to ourselves. But we must never underestimate the power of gifts, of talent, time, and tithe, to do so much good in the world, and to enrich our own lives. It truly is better to give than to receive, but by the grace of God we can do both.
As we approach October 28, I hope that all of us will take some time to increase our mindfulness of why we give, what it means to give, what we are called to give. And in these weeks, we will also reflect upon all that God gives to us, in particular, the opportunity to share a special time and spirit in a truly remarkable community.
Blessings to you in the coming weeks - may you feel what I feel, see what I see, whenever I walk among this living, awesome, sanctuary.
Good morning everyone! My name is Ryan Yamada. I have the distinct privilege of announcing to this wonderful body of Christ that Consecration Sunday is this October 25! Consecration Sunday is a chance to ask ourselves what we feel compelled to give to God and His service, as so beautifully and remarkably demonstrated by all the good that comes from this faith community.
I've been asked to provide my own experiences in the Church and how I intend to approach Consecration Sunday, both of which I am happy to do.
About a year ago, you welcomed me into this congregation, and entrusted me with a most precious task - to help nurture and encourage the senior high students in confirmation class. I'm still amazed you let a virtual stranger do this - though Rebecca kept an eye on me to make sure no damage was done. I found the youth to be brilliant, kind, passionate, and most of all, generous in heart and spirit. I'm not sure what they got out of my presence, other than some wisecracks and enthusiastic support for the appreciation of caffeinated beverages. I found myself wondering, over and over again: why is it that these men and women are so awesome?
Credit goes to them of course, their friends and families, and God. But I think this spiritual community also played, and continues to play, a key role. During service, I'm often struck by a vision of a multi-generational construction project, in which you are building, brick by brick, an awesome sanctuary that extends far beyond these walls, and far beyond Sunday morning. From Buffalo Street to Bosnia, you extend comfort, nurture the spirit, and challenge hearts and minds to become stronger, wiser, and more loving. What you do demonstrates courage and conviction that can come only from loving something greater than yourself. It is here that I first felt the full force of 1 Cor 13:13 - "And now these three remain: faith, hope, and love, but the greatest of these is love."
Of course we’re not perfect. We are often failed saints, and all too often successful sinners; we have imperfect moral resumes. Even my flaws have flaws. But we do God's work as well as we can, however we can.
In so many ways I have trusted you with my heart and my soul; that decision to embrace this community has been one of the best of my life. It is therefore easy for me to trust this living church with what offerings I can give, for it is here that I see it work, in ways subtle and sublime.
We decide, as individuals, what we can give. Our reasons for giving are as complex and diverse as our reasons for coming here, and often remain unknown even to ourselves. But we must never underestimate the power of gifts, of talent, time, and tithe, to do so much good in the world, and to enrich our own lives. It truly is better to give than to receive, but by the grace of God we can do both.
As we approach October 28, I hope that all of us will take some time to increase our mindfulness of why we give, what it means to give, what we are called to give. And in these weeks, we will also reflect upon all that God gives to us, in particular, the opportunity to share a special time and spirit in a truly remarkable community.
Blessings to you in the coming weeks - may you feel what I feel, see what I see, whenever I walk among this living, awesome, sanctuary.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
The Red Moon Rises: Sputnik and the Space Age Turn 50
My article in the Cornell Daily Sun, published October 2, 2007, two days before 50th anniversary.
http://cornellsun.com/node/24971/
http://cornellsun.com/node/24971/
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Stephen Biddle on Iraq
Hi,
Recently, Dr. Steve Biddle, adviser to General Petraeus, spoke at the 2007 Summer Workshop on Analysis of Military Operations and Strategy (SWAMOS) meeting in Ithaca, NY, organized by the Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies.
I'm posting my notes on his comments because you may be in a better position to gather information and influence the debate than I. Either strategic option proposed by Dr. Biddle would have strong long-term economic and political consequences for America and its workforce - even astronomy will not remain unscathed by the expense that this, and social security, will inevitably pose upon the government budgets and the economy as a whole. Should you know of any current research on the economic and political impact of a Middle East regional conflict, please forward that information to me.
Kennedy once said that the greatest challenge facing a democracy is a loss of focus and mission. Our generation has often been criticized for being indecisive, noncommittal. We have been chastised for our pretensions to jadedness and wisdom, though we lack the experience that makes either credible. Perhaps it is in this area we may find purpose and rewarding employment of our talents.
Best wishes, and good luck with everything.
- Ryan
******
Summary of Steven Biddle talk: US Strategy in Iraq
Dr. Steven Biddle began with a recap of Iraq strategy under George Casey. Casey focused on three criteria for success:
1. political reform, in the form of a new Iraqi constitution, representative democracy, and an effective system of courts
2. economic development that provides incentive for individuals to be personally invested in the success of the nascent democracy
3. developing indigenous forces that would provide security and permit the phased withdrawal of US forces.
Stalled progress in these three areas have led to two principle policy changes:
1. increase in troop strength
2. joint campaign plan that focused on clearing operations in Baghdad
Biddle suggests that the perceived problem in Baghdad are conflicts between Sunni and Shiite militias in the city center. In actuality, Baghdad is now Shiite-dominated. Sunni militias are operating from a ring of suburban areas and villages about 10-50 miles outside of the capital, commonly known as the Baghdad belt.
Biddle tells two anecdotes to illustrate his point. The first involves his trip to a marketplace, surrounded by 12-foot concrete blast walls and several checkpoints. Escorted by a squad of heavily armed infantry, Dr. Biddle explored the marketplace and noted that the marketplace, at least, was economically vibrant, with CD players, radios, and other consumer goods readily available. He points this out to demonstrate that given a certain troop density, security infrastructure, and a system of checkpoints, it is possible to stop car bombers and attacks, or at least mitigate them enough to allow the local economy to recover.
His second anecdote tells of a trip in a column of humvees along a road policed by Iraqi forces. After passing the checkpoint controlled by an Iraqi officer, the column proceeded along a road, exchanged a bit of small arms fire from nearby rooftops, and eventually stopped in front of an improvised barricade that had been constructed in the last 12 hours. Observing that they were now surrounded by buildings with high rooftops, covered by swarming militia forces with machine guns, Biddle et al. soon beat a hasty retreat. He feels that the only reason why they did not receive a salvo of RPGs was that the convoy had arrived about 12 hours early, catching the would-be ambushers unawares. As they retreated through the checkpoint, the same Iraqi officer watched the convoy pass by, with the same impassive look on his face.
This story illustrates his point that the Iraqi army is heavily penetrated by both Sunni and Shiite militias. This has compromised both the efficacy of Iraqi forces to effectively keep the peace, and may even mean that improved training is only improving the combat effectiveness of sectarian militias anticipating the withdrawal of coalition forces and a full-scale civil war.
Biddle described the two main strategic theories underpinning the recent surge around Baghdad.
1. If you build it, they will come
According to this theory, Baghdad is the key to security in Iraq. If security can be guaranteed, then the political leaders of the various factions will be able to meet and, through the new democratic institutions, forge a grand compromise. Such a political settlement will translate into greater peace across the country.
Biddle's problem with this theory is that it assumes the factions want to forge a compromise. In fact, each faction perceives the others as a potential genocide threat. With that much at stake, no faction has an incentive to pursue negotiations with the goal of a final compromise, and instead will use the political process merely to prepare for what is believed to be an inevitable civil war.
2. Inkspot argument
According to this theory, just as an inkspot can slowly spread across a napkin, local stability can translate into regional stability. The strategy envisioned uses US soldiers as assault forces, clearing neighborhoods of sectarian militias. The Iraqi forces, though less well trained and equipped, do possess the competence needed to hold cleared neighborhoods and restore the rule of law.
Biddle notes that this would work if it weren't for the fact that the Iraqi army is heavily penetrated by sectarian militias. Consequently, when Iraqi forces are placed in command of cleared neighborhoods, these zones revert to sectarian violence. Without an Iraqi army capable of sectarian disinterestedness, there is no possibility for translating the local gains made by tactical actions into long-term strategic success, either locally or regionally.
Biddle then proposes two possible solutions:
1. The Long Shot
The Long Shot envisions a 20-year (generational) occupation of Iraq, with as many forces as possible. Biddle proposes 110,000 combat troops (not including support staff) as economically sustainable and politically feasible. These forces would selectively use military action to acquire and enforce bilateral arrangements with local leaders. Combined with very powerful incentives (patronage), the threat of military reprisal might be enough to maintain a dependence relationship between security forces and local tribal/civic leaders.
The reason why this approach might work is that Al-Qaeda in Iraq and other militias have disrupted the patronage trade that keeps local leaders in power. By exchanging material wealth for cooperation, US forces could help turn the militias into a common security threat, attacking and destroying those that refuse to be bought off or controlled by local leaders.
Biddle does not detail the cost in dollars, though he suggests that the human toll would be about 700 American lives a year. Assuming America does everything right, he places the probability of successfully averting a civil war at at 10%.
2. Complete Withdrawal
Complete Withdrawal could occur at best over 1-2 years. Biddle believes it would take this long because American forces would probably have to fight their way out, and also would need to move a vast amount of materiel in order to withdraw in good order.
This approach runs the risk of catalyzing the onset of a full-scale civil war. While such a war may be inevitable, Biddle believes that the greater problem lies in regionalizing the conflict. He claims that it takes about 10 years for a civil war to burn itself out, for the parties involved to be completely exhausted and materially depleted enough to pursue peace. However, by year 8 or so, it is highly likely that domestic pressures from religious/political groups and the strain of refugees will cause Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Iran, Turkey, and possibly other nations to enter into the conflict on various sides.
Biddle acknowledges that some feel that the potential nation-state belligerents will restrict their participation to monetary and covert logistical support, and will not commit armed forces.
Beyond the obvious humanitarian issues, a regional conflict would severely impact oil production and transportation, driving up global petroleum prices and precipitating economic crises worldwide.
A third alternative which no one mentions is to commit about 500,000 soldiers (plus support staff) to peacekeeping in Iraq. This would likely require a draft.
Biddle also remarked on partition. He notes that while partition might lead to more defensible borders, fundamental problems remain. The Sunni heartland is perceived to not be economically viable. A three-state solution that depends upon a piece of paper for economic guarantees to oil profits would probably be unacceptable, leading to pressure to capture oil fields by force.
Biddle notes that neither option is popular in Congress. The most popular options involve a compromise between the two, which he feels would be doomed to failure and a waste of resources. Furthermore, the US military is currently forbidden from working on a withdrawal plan, particularly because it would be met by howls of derision from current pro-war Republicans that are staking their political lives on support for the president and the military. Biddle suggests that the White House might be able to manage the political fallout if it openly pushed drafting withdrawal plans out of prudence and responsibility to the American strategic position.
Finally, Biddle notes that no one in Europe has a plan in the event of a regional war. His conversations with his German counterparts suggest that they are unwilling or unable to shift away from the politically salient priorities of environmental security, narcoterrorism, democratization in Eastern Europe/former Soviet Union states, and other domestic concerns and focus on the dire impact should Iraq fail. In fact, according to Biddle, an economic analysis of the impact of war in the Middle East is a severe gap in current scholarship and policy analysis, and could serve to better cast the debate and discussion.
Recently, Dr. Steve Biddle, adviser to General Petraeus, spoke at the 2007 Summer Workshop on Analysis of Military Operations and Strategy (SWAMOS) meeting in Ithaca, NY, organized by the Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies.
I'm posting my notes on his comments because you may be in a better position to gather information and influence the debate than I. Either strategic option proposed by Dr. Biddle would have strong long-term economic and political consequences for America and its workforce - even astronomy will not remain unscathed by the expense that this, and social security, will inevitably pose upon the government budgets and the economy as a whole. Should you know of any current research on the economic and political impact of a Middle East regional conflict, please forward that information to me.
Kennedy once said that the greatest challenge facing a democracy is a loss of focus and mission. Our generation has often been criticized for being indecisive, noncommittal. We have been chastised for our pretensions to jadedness and wisdom, though we lack the experience that makes either credible. Perhaps it is in this area we may find purpose and rewarding employment of our talents.
Best wishes, and good luck with everything.
- Ryan
******
Summary of Steven Biddle talk: US Strategy in Iraq
Dr. Steven Biddle began with a recap of Iraq strategy under George Casey. Casey focused on three criteria for success:
1. political reform, in the form of a new Iraqi constitution, representative democracy, and an effective system of courts
2. economic development that provides incentive for individuals to be personally invested in the success of the nascent democracy
3. developing indigenous forces that would provide security and permit the phased withdrawal of US forces.
Stalled progress in these three areas have led to two principle policy changes:
1. increase in troop strength
2. joint campaign plan that focused on clearing operations in Baghdad
Biddle suggests that the perceived problem in Baghdad are conflicts between Sunni and Shiite militias in the city center. In actuality, Baghdad is now Shiite-dominated. Sunni militias are operating from a ring of suburban areas and villages about 10-50 miles outside of the capital, commonly known as the Baghdad belt.
Biddle tells two anecdotes to illustrate his point. The first involves his trip to a marketplace, surrounded by 12-foot concrete blast walls and several checkpoints. Escorted by a squad of heavily armed infantry, Dr. Biddle explored the marketplace and noted that the marketplace, at least, was economically vibrant, with CD players, radios, and other consumer goods readily available. He points this out to demonstrate that given a certain troop density, security infrastructure, and a system of checkpoints, it is possible to stop car bombers and attacks, or at least mitigate them enough to allow the local economy to recover.
His second anecdote tells of a trip in a column of humvees along a road policed by Iraqi forces. After passing the checkpoint controlled by an Iraqi officer, the column proceeded along a road, exchanged a bit of small arms fire from nearby rooftops, and eventually stopped in front of an improvised barricade that had been constructed in the last 12 hours. Observing that they were now surrounded by buildings with high rooftops, covered by swarming militia forces with machine guns, Biddle et al. soon beat a hasty retreat. He feels that the only reason why they did not receive a salvo of RPGs was that the convoy had arrived about 12 hours early, catching the would-be ambushers unawares. As they retreated through the checkpoint, the same Iraqi officer watched the convoy pass by, with the same impassive look on his face.
This story illustrates his point that the Iraqi army is heavily penetrated by both Sunni and Shiite militias. This has compromised both the efficacy of Iraqi forces to effectively keep the peace, and may even mean that improved training is only improving the combat effectiveness of sectarian militias anticipating the withdrawal of coalition forces and a full-scale civil war.
Biddle described the two main strategic theories underpinning the recent surge around Baghdad.
1. If you build it, they will come
According to this theory, Baghdad is the key to security in Iraq. If security can be guaranteed, then the political leaders of the various factions will be able to meet and, through the new democratic institutions, forge a grand compromise. Such a political settlement will translate into greater peace across the country.
Biddle's problem with this theory is that it assumes the factions want to forge a compromise. In fact, each faction perceives the others as a potential genocide threat. With that much at stake, no faction has an incentive to pursue negotiations with the goal of a final compromise, and instead will use the political process merely to prepare for what is believed to be an inevitable civil war.
2. Inkspot argument
According to this theory, just as an inkspot can slowly spread across a napkin, local stability can translate into regional stability. The strategy envisioned uses US soldiers as assault forces, clearing neighborhoods of sectarian militias. The Iraqi forces, though less well trained and equipped, do possess the competence needed to hold cleared neighborhoods and restore the rule of law.
Biddle notes that this would work if it weren't for the fact that the Iraqi army is heavily penetrated by sectarian militias. Consequently, when Iraqi forces are placed in command of cleared neighborhoods, these zones revert to sectarian violence. Without an Iraqi army capable of sectarian disinterestedness, there is no possibility for translating the local gains made by tactical actions into long-term strategic success, either locally or regionally.
Biddle then proposes two possible solutions:
1. The Long Shot
The Long Shot envisions a 20-year (generational) occupation of Iraq, with as many forces as possible. Biddle proposes 110,000 combat troops (not including support staff) as economically sustainable and politically feasible. These forces would selectively use military action to acquire and enforce bilateral arrangements with local leaders. Combined with very powerful incentives (patronage), the threat of military reprisal might be enough to maintain a dependence relationship between security forces and local tribal/civic leaders.
The reason why this approach might work is that Al-Qaeda in Iraq and other militias have disrupted the patronage trade that keeps local leaders in power. By exchanging material wealth for cooperation, US forces could help turn the militias into a common security threat, attacking and destroying those that refuse to be bought off or controlled by local leaders.
Biddle does not detail the cost in dollars, though he suggests that the human toll would be about 700 American lives a year. Assuming America does everything right, he places the probability of successfully averting a civil war at at 10%.
2. Complete Withdrawal
Complete Withdrawal could occur at best over 1-2 years. Biddle believes it would take this long because American forces would probably have to fight their way out, and also would need to move a vast amount of materiel in order to withdraw in good order.
This approach runs the risk of catalyzing the onset of a full-scale civil war. While such a war may be inevitable, Biddle believes that the greater problem lies in regionalizing the conflict. He claims that it takes about 10 years for a civil war to burn itself out, for the parties involved to be completely exhausted and materially depleted enough to pursue peace. However, by year 8 or so, it is highly likely that domestic pressures from religious/political groups and the strain of refugees will cause Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Iran, Turkey, and possibly other nations to enter into the conflict on various sides.
Biddle acknowledges that some feel that the potential nation-state belligerents will restrict their participation to monetary and covert logistical support, and will not commit armed forces.
Beyond the obvious humanitarian issues, a regional conflict would severely impact oil production and transportation, driving up global petroleum prices and precipitating economic crises worldwide.
A third alternative which no one mentions is to commit about 500,000 soldiers (plus support staff) to peacekeeping in Iraq. This would likely require a draft.
Biddle also remarked on partition. He notes that while partition might lead to more defensible borders, fundamental problems remain. The Sunni heartland is perceived to not be economically viable. A three-state solution that depends upon a piece of paper for economic guarantees to oil profits would probably be unacceptable, leading to pressure to capture oil fields by force.
Biddle notes that neither option is popular in Congress. The most popular options involve a compromise between the two, which he feels would be doomed to failure and a waste of resources. Furthermore, the US military is currently forbidden from working on a withdrawal plan, particularly because it would be met by howls of derision from current pro-war Republicans that are staking their political lives on support for the president and the military. Biddle suggests that the White House might be able to manage the political fallout if it openly pushed drafting withdrawal plans out of prudence and responsibility to the American strategic position.
Finally, Biddle notes that no one in Europe has a plan in the event of a regional war. His conversations with his German counterparts suggest that they are unwilling or unable to shift away from the politically salient priorities of environmental security, narcoterrorism, democratization in Eastern Europe/former Soviet Union states, and other domestic concerns and focus on the dire impact should Iraq fail. In fact, according to Biddle, an economic analysis of the impact of war in the Middle East is a severe gap in current scholarship and policy analysis, and could serve to better cast the debate and discussion.
Friday, June 15, 2007
Learned Hand and the Spirit of Liberty
I have long believed that all that was required to guide the ship of state and world society to more peaceful progress was a learned hand at the helm of each nation and group. Imagine then, to my surprise, upon learning that Learned Hand is an American jurist. His speech on May 21, 1944, delivered at the "I Am an American Day" ceremony in Central Park, New York City, articulates more eloquently than I could ever the limited role of institutions in safeguarding liberty, and the limitless role for personal spirit in articulating, shaping, and building that just society that exists in vague recollection and distant ideas, growing, one hopes, ever more defined as we grow wiser.
The Spirit of Liberty
Learned Hand
Delivered May 21, 1944, Central Park, New York City
We have gathered here to affirm a faith, a faith in a common purpose, a common conviction, a common devotion. Some of us have chosen America as the land of our adoption; the rest have come from those who did the same. For this reason we have some right to consider ourselves a picked group, a group of those who had the courage to break from the past and brave the dangers and the loneliness of a strange land. What was the object that nerved us, or those who went before us, to this choice? We sought liberty; freedom from oppression, freedom from want, freedom to be ourselves. This we then sought; this we now believe that we are by way of winning. What do we mean when we say that first of all we seek liberty? I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it. And what is this liberty which must lie in the hearts of men and women? It is not the ruthless, the unbridled will; it is not freedom to do as one likes. That is the denial of liberty, and leads straight to its overthrow. A society in which men recognize no check upon their freedom soon becomes a society where freedom is the possession of only a savage few; as we have learned to our sorrow.
What then is the spirit of liberty? I cannot define it; I can only tell you my own faith. The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the mind of other men and women; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which weighs their interests alongside its own without bias; the spirit of liberty remembers that not even a sparrow falls to earth unheeded; the spirit of liberty is the spirit of Him who, near two thousand years ago, taught mankind that lesson it has never learned but never quite forgotten; that there may be a kingdom where the least shall be heard and considered side by side with the greatest. And now in that spirit, that spirit of an America which has never been, and which may never be; nay, which never will be except as the conscience and courage of Americans create it; yet in the spirit of that America which lies hidden in some form in the aspirations of us all; in the spirit of that America for which our young men are at this moment fighting and dying; in that spirit of liberty and of America I ask you to rise and with me pledge our faith in the glorious destiny of our beloved country.”
The Spirit of Liberty
Learned Hand
Delivered May 21, 1944, Central Park, New York City
We have gathered here to affirm a faith, a faith in a common purpose, a common conviction, a common devotion. Some of us have chosen America as the land of our adoption; the rest have come from those who did the same. For this reason we have some right to consider ourselves a picked group, a group of those who had the courage to break from the past and brave the dangers and the loneliness of a strange land. What was the object that nerved us, or those who went before us, to this choice? We sought liberty; freedom from oppression, freedom from want, freedom to be ourselves. This we then sought; this we now believe that we are by way of winning. What do we mean when we say that first of all we seek liberty? I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it. And what is this liberty which must lie in the hearts of men and women? It is not the ruthless, the unbridled will; it is not freedom to do as one likes. That is the denial of liberty, and leads straight to its overthrow. A society in which men recognize no check upon their freedom soon becomes a society where freedom is the possession of only a savage few; as we have learned to our sorrow.
What then is the spirit of liberty? I cannot define it; I can only tell you my own faith. The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the mind of other men and women; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which weighs their interests alongside its own without bias; the spirit of liberty remembers that not even a sparrow falls to earth unheeded; the spirit of liberty is the spirit of Him who, near two thousand years ago, taught mankind that lesson it has never learned but never quite forgotten; that there may be a kingdom where the least shall be heard and considered side by side with the greatest. And now in that spirit, that spirit of an America which has never been, and which may never be; nay, which never will be except as the conscience and courage of Americans create it; yet in the spirit of that America which lies hidden in some form in the aspirations of us all; in the spirit of that America for which our young men are at this moment fighting and dying; in that spirit of liberty and of America I ask you to rise and with me pledge our faith in the glorious destiny of our beloved country.”
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Why Anti-Religion in Science is Undesirable
In the coming days, I hope to clarify my thoughts on science and faith, especially, but not limited to, the astronomy issue, in a set of articles to be posted here. For now I will post what I feel to be the main reasons I think attempts by members of the astronomical community to attack religion in general are short-sighted, detrimental, and to me, personally offensive.
Astronomy ought not, and perhaps can not, position itself in opposition to, or otherwise discriminate against, religion or the religious for the following reasons:
The Nature of Science:
1. Science, at its best, seeks to be universal in its accessibility and its benefits. This does not mean it seeks to be universally applicable, or the only system by which legitimate knowledge is created and understood.
2. Science functions best in a working democracy. A working democracy defends the minority from the tyranny of the majority. To the extent that science is, or can be, democratic - a good idea is a good idea, whether it comes from the lowliest student or the most respected researcher - it must seek to avoid the tyranny of the majority.
Economic Assessment of Product, Consumers, and Labor Force:
3. Astronomy itself depends upon a quasi-mysticism that underpins its continued relevance to society.
4. It is utterly foolish to propose to discriminate against 50% (rough percentage of Americans who consider themselves born-again Christians) of your potential labor pool. Excellence from all backgrounds needs to be encouraged and nurtured. Note that this is the equivalent (logically, morally, and even numerically) of barring women from science.
Broader Societal Tensions, Conflicts, and Dangers:
5. If there is truly a cultural/ideological war being waged, astronomy, and science in general, will lose the battle for the hearts and minds of the individual and society if science is seen to be absent of heart and spirit.
6. It plays into the hands of individuals and groups who stand to benefit from a fight between the scientific and religious communities. More specifically, by using a divide-and-conquer strategy against two of the strongest sources of legitimacy outside the legal/economic/political institutions that make up American society, those who actually control a great deal of American policy, economic wealth, and benefit from its legal structure will perpetuate their power and influence, and without checks from these alternate forms of legitimate authority, will do so at the expense of the broader community.
Astronomy ought not, and perhaps can not, position itself in opposition to, or otherwise discriminate against, religion or the religious for the following reasons:
The Nature of Science:
1. Science, at its best, seeks to be universal in its accessibility and its benefits. This does not mean it seeks to be universally applicable, or the only system by which legitimate knowledge is created and understood.
2. Science functions best in a working democracy. A working democracy defends the minority from the tyranny of the majority. To the extent that science is, or can be, democratic - a good idea is a good idea, whether it comes from the lowliest student or the most respected researcher - it must seek to avoid the tyranny of the majority.
Economic Assessment of Product, Consumers, and Labor Force:
3. Astronomy itself depends upon a quasi-mysticism that underpins its continued relevance to society.
4. It is utterly foolish to propose to discriminate against 50% (rough percentage of Americans who consider themselves born-again Christians) of your potential labor pool. Excellence from all backgrounds needs to be encouraged and nurtured. Note that this is the equivalent (logically, morally, and even numerically) of barring women from science.
Broader Societal Tensions, Conflicts, and Dangers:
5. If there is truly a cultural/ideological war being waged, astronomy, and science in general, will lose the battle for the hearts and minds of the individual and society if science is seen to be absent of heart and spirit.
6. It plays into the hands of individuals and groups who stand to benefit from a fight between the scientific and religious communities. More specifically, by using a divide-and-conquer strategy against two of the strongest sources of legitimacy outside the legal/economic/political institutions that make up American society, those who actually control a great deal of American policy, economic wealth, and benefit from its legal structure will perpetuate their power and influence, and without checks from these alternate forms of legitimate authority, will do so at the expense of the broader community.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
response to comments on previous post, morphing into commentary on American institutions and risk
To an anonymous friend, RE: comments on previous post via Facebook -
As usual, you rightly call me on making blanket, qualitative, useless, and borderline nationalist chauvinistic comments about things that are far beyond my competence. This is why I depend upon you as a friend and intellectual-emotional counterweight to my delusions of grandeur. I've been in college too long.
However, being an intellectual-wannabe, I will of course try to discursively (word I learned in S&TS) cover my intellectual ass and defend an increasingly untenable position (e.g. French at Dien Bien Phu), possibly by referencing historical events that have no bearing on the present discussion.
I won't quote your reply, in case you wanted to keep your specific comments confidential, but I think that it's only fair to respond to your valid critique about my comments that implied that the French enjoyed greater "liberty" than Americans did, at least in the realm of protesting.
To make my point (and organize my scattered mind) I'll argue the following:
1. Liberty of the individual is restricted by laws and social norms.
2. The ability to effectively enforce law and defend life, liberty, and property depends upon a state's monopoly of force
3. The US enjoys a greater monopoly on the capacity to effectively project force within its borders, even though individual agency still exists through the availability of personal firearms.
4. Trust in American institutions is reinforced by greater domestic control of force. In turn, the trust in American institution legitimizes the government and permits even greater federal control of force and jurisdiction.
5. Consequently, protests are more controlled within this state - especially since greater stability in existing institutions provides greater contrast when order breaks down, and a potentially greater backlash because the government's legitimacy is undermined.
I try to articulate my thoughts a bit more on this.
1. Liberty of the individual is restricted by laws and social norms.
"Liberty" is a sensitive topic. Perhaps it was a poor choice of words. Maybe my mind linked it to something I read in Prof. Wright's class - philosophy of liberty and equality - in which John Stuart Mill's book "On Liberty" discusses a lot of interesting principles - including the harm principle. Basically, one option of setting the boundary between acceptable and unacceptable behavior is to constrain, regulate, or otherwise ban actions that harm anyone else. Self-harm (e.g. suicide) is difficult to regulate, not only because enforcement of law on dead people is difficult, but because it is seen by many people to represent a paternalism that encroaches on the individual's rights to govern his or her own life (however horribly a job the individual may do) provided that such injury doesn't lead to harm of others. What this means is that we can do whatever the hell we want to ourselves (drink, smoke, work in the lab 14 hours a day), provided it doesn't harm others (drunk-driving, second-hand smoking, child neglect, if we have dependents).
2. The ability to effectively enforce law and defend life, liberty, and property depends upon a state's monopoly of force
The monopoly on force that has been the core of the legitimacy of the state since 1648 (Treaty of Westphalia), and articulated in state theory since at least Locke. If you can't defend your territory, you won't be able to provide your citizens with the freedom to worry about longer-term goals like growing food, designing spacecraft, urban planning, etc. In other words, you will remain in a very primitive societal and economic structure, in which any additional resources are devoted to security until the condition of sovereignty is established.
Stalin once said, "How many divisions does the Pope have?" (Interesting comment in response: http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1492) Stalin could not have asked this before 1648. During the Middle Ages, the Pope did have military forces under his control, though his true power involved the split legitimacy (temporal (worldly), and ecclesiastical, (spiritual) ). So what? Well, if hearts and minds matter, then it means that individuals or groups whose hearts and minds belong to someone else might be a threat to the social order. The treaty of Westphalia in 1648 came at the end of the Thirty Years War, an extremely bloody religious-political conflict in which a third of "Germans" were killed. It was recognized by all military/political leaders that this split legitimacy wasn't working, and that the only way to end the mutually destructive conflagration was to create the nation-state as the unit of the international system. Individual leaders would align themselves with the Pope or Luther, but the heads of state would not interfere with the internal affairs of areas considered the domain of other heads of state. Transnational ideas like Protestantism and Catholicism were to be used by the political leadership, but strict domestic security needed to be enforced. Cultural and religious homogeneity helped ensure stability, but for the regime to last, primary allegiance was to the leader, not to the Pope. (Walsingham was evil, but he and Elizabeth did what they needed to do to keep England free and unified).
It's hard to imagine a society that exists in which the state government doesn't have a monopoly on force, yet enjoys sufficient legitimacy to govern. I suppose this would be federalism or empire, though I think our own history as a nation, the history of most empires (Roman, Holy Roman, Byzantine, British), and even the present situation in Iraq indicates that without the monopoly of force - the stability of security - it is impossible for the government of the state to enjoy legitimacy. A monopoly on force appears to be a necessary - though not sufficient - condition to making laws that matter.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." These words from the Declaration of Independence avoided the dustbin of history because the British were unable to maintain a monopoly of force.
3. The US enjoys a greater monopoly on the capacity to effectively project force within its borders, even though individual agency still exists through the availability of personal firearms.
I would say that the restriction of the right to torch cars, not in the purely legal sense, but through their effectiveness, illustrates the choice America has made that individual liberty and property ought to be protected, even if the individual liberty to violently protest is infringed upon.
The United States appears to have more efficient mechanisms of social control over force - in particular, a more effective police force/national guard, or at least policies that allow them to be deployed more readily with greater freedom of action. Maybe this isn't fair - the tragedy at Virginia Tech, and the despicable attempts by gun lobbyists to immediately use it to justify guns on campus - but though we can debate how effectively the United States controls the individual's ability to maintain access to force, I would say that the US does a pretty good job of controlling the use of force within its own borders. The FBI has national jurisdiction, and though Law and Order illustrates that conflicts between jurisdiction between federal and local authorities do exist, it rarely comes to the point of violence. My American History isn't so great, but I think that 1957 saw the last gasp of state control of force coming into conflict with the feds, and even then, the Arkansas National Guard deferred to the federal deployment of National Guardsman during desegregation under Eisenhower. (http://www.eisenhowerbirthplace.org/legacy/ike0003.htm)
I would say that the restriction of the right to torch cars, not in the purely legal sense, but through their effectiveness, illustrates the choice America has made that individual liberty and property ought to be protected, even if the individual liberty to violently protest is infringed upon.
The United States appears to have more efficient mechanisms of social control over force - in particular, a more effective police force/national guard, or at least policies that allow them to be deployed more readily with greater freedom of action. Maybe this isn't fair - the tragedy at Virginia Tech, and the despicable attempts by gun lobbyists to immediately use it to justify guns on campus - but though we can debate how effectively the United States controls the individual's ability to maintain access to force, I would say that the US does a pretty good job of controlling the use of force within its own borders.
4. Trust in American institutions is reinforced by greater domestic control of force. In turn, the trust in American institution legitimizes the government and permits even greater federal control of force and jurisdiction.
The French definitely have their problems. We don't quite have a 10% unemployment rate (http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/france-pays-price-of-liberal-jobless-benefits/2005/08/30/1125302569771.html), and I think in the French banlieues the unemployment rate was approaching 50%. By contrast, Pomona seems to be around 15% (http://www.city-data.com/housing/houses-Pomona-California.html). Caution: I think the French calculate unemployment differently than the US - I'm too lazy to get the facts, but I think the US does not count those who cease to qualify for unemployment benefits after a certain time (like the homeless people we used to feed), while the French may allow people to collect benefits nearly indefinitely.
When a state like France can't deliver on basic things like jobs, an inability to control riots illustrates the weakness of the state, the infringement upon individual liberty and property, and the delegitimization of the governing party - or in extreme cases (like Soviet Communism), of the government structure as a whole. Similarly, I think it would be fair to say that the recidivism of Russia into authoritarianism illustrates the delegitimization of post-Soviet democracy, in which democratic government was unaccompanied by greater control over the privatization process and generation-long efforts to develop democratic institutions.
Qualitatively, there appears to be a greater domestic security apparatus that helps regulate protests and helps them avoid things like the torching of property. I recall a NYTimes article mentioning that during the riots, the rate of torched cars was roughly twice that of an ordinary night. That means that if Paris was burning during the riots, it half-burns on ordinary days.
I've got no stats on the American side for comparison. But the only events in recent memory where there were comparable levels of civil disorder were in LA during the Rodney King riots, during some extended blackouts during the summer, and whenever the Lakers won (we're such fair-weather fans).
America has enjoyed relatively stable economic growth. We have enjoyed fairly good domestic security - Europe and Russia have been dealing with Islamic terrorism well before 9/11. We have food, we have security, we have religious freedom. Consequently, we can pursue careers, argue about the finer points of science-faith issues, discuss the role of national debt on science, etc. We depend on an array of networks and institutions - from high-speed internet to grocery store supply chains to the liberalized financial markets that let us borrow money for school, consumption, homes, and cars.
For the most part, awareness of those networks and systems is unnecessary. After all, that's why system administrators, engineers, CIA analysts, Wal-Mart operations researchers, and investment bankers are paid. As groups, we are far more risk-averse, and as groups do not want to either engage in extreme violent conflict with the police or otherwise engage in activities that mean long-term risk - existential, financial, or social - to our existing interests. I don't know if it's because we're so rich that populism has lost its wind - the last time there was this level of wealth inequality in this country was in 1929, yet protests about poverty are much lower in frequency and intensity now than a few decades ago.
My French friend was fascinated by the idea that the American dollar is fiat money - that is, nothing is underpinning the value of our currency than the confidence that we have in it. Maybe I've been spending too much time with STS people, but social constructivism as I understand it - the social construction of reality based on shared norms and social interactions, rather than some "external", "objective" measure - is imbedded even within our very economic system. Yes, quantitative metrics can determine whether the valuation of the dollar relative to the yuan (renminbi?) is representative of an optimal trading system, or if a given stock is overvalued compared to its industry counterparts, and yes, the damn code either compiles or it doesn't, but ultimately a great deal of what we depend upon - the dollar, the state, and even the value and stability of my own mind - is supported by confidence, individual and shared, and a complicated, convoluted, and probably undemocratic and dynamic process of consensus norms.
It's scary when we think about how dependent we are upon the smooth functioning of various extremely complicated systems - and this fear has been motivating Richard Garwin, a high-level science advisor to many administrations who spoke recently at Cornell about the need to develop an effective emergency action plan in the event of a nuclear terrorist attack in Manhattan - he puts it at roughly 20-50% in the next couple years. One of the barriers to this is the illusion that absolute security is possible. It's a politically intractable problem. How do you convince the public that you can't provide absolute security, that you need to devote money to preparing for the event of a major terrorist attack, where without adequate preparation, more people could die from hunger, panic, and lawlessness than in the original attack.
But the main point is this: America is strong, rich, and powerful because it has delivered, its citizens believe in it, and no other nation appears (yet) to marshal the coalition of personal resources (that underpin our intellectual, financial, martial and physical* resources) needed to compete with US power at the global level. And we have been able to do this because America has made good on many of its promises to its citizens. It's not quite, "we are rich because we think we are rich and think we want to be rich", but as absurd as it sounds, it's not too far off. We can focus our mental energies toward making the nation - as a motley crew of interests united by an overall self-interest in the maintenance of American power - stronger, richer, and smarter because security is guaranteed. And security is guaranteed by our continuous efforts along these lines. Chalmers Johnson says, correctly, that "Nowhere is it written that the American Empire goes on forever." But, to a large extent, so long as we believe in the possibility of a measure of security, and that our leaders are pursuing policies that do not reveal gross domestic signs to the contrary, we will not take to the streets, we will not burn cars, we will not give up HBO to read Mao's Red Book, and we will not be wrong in our refusal to sacrifice a measure of calculated ignorance for a measure of unreasonable paranoia.
I would argue that all of these things make protests in America far more controlled, and far less effective as an instrument of change.
(*physical resources are something in that world that social constructivism fails to account for, though the decision to exploit domestic reserves of coal, uranium, etc and form agreements with partners which possess strategic resources is subject to some elements of social construction.)
Our time at HMC provides an interesting example. During our time there was only two major protests that I knew of - one was against the Iraq war, and one was in support of Kerri Dunn. Both of those events were very orderly, limited to a few hours, and - damn it - were characterized by a few left-wing individuals who believed so much in institutions that they felt that top-down approaches were the only things that mattered. Remember SLAM? Remember that their platform and mission focused on getting the administration to sign a letter? This is not the platform of a revolutionary group - this is the platform of a group who, inspired by fiery rhetoric and revolutionary fervor, still trusted the process, and still possessed enough sense to see the power of institutional legitimacy compared with a few angry students. I was swept up in the fever like everyone else - but at no time did I feel that the institution had, by a failure, become irrelevant. Cosmetic changes may have been needed, but in the end, we trusted the Judiciary/Disciplinary Board with what could have been its most important decision to date - on the fate of those participating in the cross-burning - and we trusted the academic leadership enough to not turn them out of office. No one, to my knowledge, lost their jobs, though I and many others may have lost our sense of rationality.
As such, I no longer trust the protest to become the prime tool of social change. The uncoordinated violence of the banlieues cannot be tolerated in America, pre- or post-9/11. Organization of course matters, but the insurgency lies within ideas and economics, not Molotov cocktails.
Post-script: How did I do on the intellecto-arrogantometer?
+ 5 used unnecessary word in another language to show off, and maybe disguise the fact that I'm a monolingual American chauvinist.
+ 10 word described above is French
+ 5 used a case study
+ 5 x 2 = 10 cited a website for statistical data
+ 10 trivialized legitimate grievance of disenfranchised minorities and their use of violence to articulate their discontent
+10 quoted a vogue liberal decrying American Imperialism (though nowhere is it written in this essay that I think the American Empire is more bad than good)
- 10 didn't cite a source from the acceptable literature
- 10 Didn't use LaTeX
- 10 stated clearly a caveat concerning different measures of unemployment
- 2 was too lazy to check above caveat and resolve it
+5 somewhat quotable closing to the essay
As usual, you rightly call me on making blanket, qualitative, useless, and borderline nationalist chauvinistic comments about things that are far beyond my competence. This is why I depend upon you as a friend and intellectual-emotional counterweight to my delusions of grandeur. I've been in college too long.
However, being an intellectual-wannabe, I will of course try to discursively (word I learned in S&TS) cover my intellectual ass and defend an increasingly untenable position (e.g. French at Dien Bien Phu), possibly by referencing historical events that have no bearing on the present discussion.
I won't quote your reply, in case you wanted to keep your specific comments confidential, but I think that it's only fair to respond to your valid critique about my comments that implied that the French enjoyed greater "liberty" than Americans did, at least in the realm of protesting.
To make my point (and organize my scattered mind) I'll argue the following:
1. Liberty of the individual is restricted by laws and social norms.
2. The ability to effectively enforce law and defend life, liberty, and property depends upon a state's monopoly of force
3. The US enjoys a greater monopoly on the capacity to effectively project force within its borders, even though individual agency still exists through the availability of personal firearms.
4. Trust in American institutions is reinforced by greater domestic control of force. In turn, the trust in American institution legitimizes the government and permits even greater federal control of force and jurisdiction.
5. Consequently, protests are more controlled within this state - especially since greater stability in existing institutions provides greater contrast when order breaks down, and a potentially greater backlash because the government's legitimacy is undermined.
I try to articulate my thoughts a bit more on this.
1. Liberty of the individual is restricted by laws and social norms.
"Liberty" is a sensitive topic. Perhaps it was a poor choice of words. Maybe my mind linked it to something I read in Prof. Wright's class - philosophy of liberty and equality - in which John Stuart Mill's book "On Liberty" discusses a lot of interesting principles - including the harm principle. Basically, one option of setting the boundary between acceptable and unacceptable behavior is to constrain, regulate, or otherwise ban actions that harm anyone else. Self-harm (e.g. suicide) is difficult to regulate, not only because enforcement of law on dead people is difficult, but because it is seen by many people to represent a paternalism that encroaches on the individual's rights to govern his or her own life (however horribly a job the individual may do) provided that such injury doesn't lead to harm of others. What this means is that we can do whatever the hell we want to ourselves (drink, smoke, work in the lab 14 hours a day), provided it doesn't harm others (drunk-driving, second-hand smoking, child neglect, if we have dependents).
2. The ability to effectively enforce law and defend life, liberty, and property depends upon a state's monopoly of force
The monopoly on force that has been the core of the legitimacy of the state since 1648 (Treaty of Westphalia), and articulated in state theory since at least Locke. If you can't defend your territory, you won't be able to provide your citizens with the freedom to worry about longer-term goals like growing food, designing spacecraft, urban planning, etc. In other words, you will remain in a very primitive societal and economic structure, in which any additional resources are devoted to security until the condition of sovereignty is established.
Stalin once said, "How many divisions does the Pope have?" (Interesting comment in response: http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1492) Stalin could not have asked this before 1648. During the Middle Ages, the Pope did have military forces under his control, though his true power involved the split legitimacy (temporal (worldly), and ecclesiastical, (spiritual) ). So what? Well, if hearts and minds matter, then it means that individuals or groups whose hearts and minds belong to someone else might be a threat to the social order. The treaty of Westphalia in 1648 came at the end of the Thirty Years War, an extremely bloody religious-political conflict in which a third of "Germans" were killed. It was recognized by all military/political leaders that this split legitimacy wasn't working, and that the only way to end the mutually destructive conflagration was to create the nation-state as the unit of the international system. Individual leaders would align themselves with the Pope or Luther, but the heads of state would not interfere with the internal affairs of areas considered the domain of other heads of state. Transnational ideas like Protestantism and Catholicism were to be used by the political leadership, but strict domestic security needed to be enforced. Cultural and religious homogeneity helped ensure stability, but for the regime to last, primary allegiance was to the leader, not to the Pope. (Walsingham was evil, but he and Elizabeth did what they needed to do to keep England free and unified).
It's hard to imagine a society that exists in which the state government doesn't have a monopoly on force, yet enjoys sufficient legitimacy to govern. I suppose this would be federalism or empire, though I think our own history as a nation, the history of most empires (Roman, Holy Roman, Byzantine, British), and even the present situation in Iraq indicates that without the monopoly of force - the stability of security - it is impossible for the government of the state to enjoy legitimacy. A monopoly on force appears to be a necessary - though not sufficient - condition to making laws that matter.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." These words from the Declaration of Independence avoided the dustbin of history because the British were unable to maintain a monopoly of force.
3. The US enjoys a greater monopoly on the capacity to effectively project force within its borders, even though individual agency still exists through the availability of personal firearms.
I would say that the restriction of the right to torch cars, not in the purely legal sense, but through their effectiveness, illustrates the choice America has made that individual liberty and property ought to be protected, even if the individual liberty to violently protest is infringed upon.
The United States appears to have more efficient mechanisms of social control over force - in particular, a more effective police force/national guard, or at least policies that allow them to be deployed more readily with greater freedom of action. Maybe this isn't fair - the tragedy at Virginia Tech, and the despicable attempts by gun lobbyists to immediately use it to justify guns on campus - but though we can debate how effectively the United States controls the individual's ability to maintain access to force, I would say that the US does a pretty good job of controlling the use of force within its own borders. The FBI has national jurisdiction, and though Law and Order illustrates that conflicts between jurisdiction between federal and local authorities do exist, it rarely comes to the point of violence. My American History isn't so great, but I think that 1957 saw the last gasp of state control of force coming into conflict with the feds, and even then, the Arkansas National Guard deferred to the federal deployment of National Guardsman during desegregation under Eisenhower. (http://www.eisenhowerbirthplace.org/legacy/ike0003.htm)
I would say that the restriction of the right to torch cars, not in the purely legal sense, but through their effectiveness, illustrates the choice America has made that individual liberty and property ought to be protected, even if the individual liberty to violently protest is infringed upon.
The United States appears to have more efficient mechanisms of social control over force - in particular, a more effective police force/national guard, or at least policies that allow them to be deployed more readily with greater freedom of action. Maybe this isn't fair - the tragedy at Virginia Tech, and the despicable attempts by gun lobbyists to immediately use it to justify guns on campus - but though we can debate how effectively the United States controls the individual's ability to maintain access to force, I would say that the US does a pretty good job of controlling the use of force within its own borders.
4. Trust in American institutions is reinforced by greater domestic control of force. In turn, the trust in American institution legitimizes the government and permits even greater federal control of force and jurisdiction.
The French definitely have their problems. We don't quite have a 10% unemployment rate (http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/france-pays-price-of-liberal-jobless-benefits/2005/08/30/1125302569771.html), and I think in the French banlieues the unemployment rate was approaching 50%. By contrast, Pomona seems to be around 15% (http://www.city-data.com/housing/houses-Pomona-California.html). Caution: I think the French calculate unemployment differently than the US - I'm too lazy to get the facts, but I think the US does not count those who cease to qualify for unemployment benefits after a certain time (like the homeless people we used to feed), while the French may allow people to collect benefits nearly indefinitely.
When a state like France can't deliver on basic things like jobs, an inability to control riots illustrates the weakness of the state, the infringement upon individual liberty and property, and the delegitimization of the governing party - or in extreme cases (like Soviet Communism), of the government structure as a whole. Similarly, I think it would be fair to say that the recidivism of Russia into authoritarianism illustrates the delegitimization of post-Soviet democracy, in which democratic government was unaccompanied by greater control over the privatization process and generation-long efforts to develop democratic institutions.
Qualitatively, there appears to be a greater domestic security apparatus that helps regulate protests and helps them avoid things like the torching of property. I recall a NYTimes article mentioning that during the riots, the rate of torched cars was roughly twice that of an ordinary night. That means that if Paris was burning during the riots, it half-burns on ordinary days.
I've got no stats on the American side for comparison. But the only events in recent memory where there were comparable levels of civil disorder were in LA during the Rodney King riots, during some extended blackouts during the summer, and whenever the Lakers won (we're such fair-weather fans).
America has enjoyed relatively stable economic growth. We have enjoyed fairly good domestic security - Europe and Russia have been dealing with Islamic terrorism well before 9/11. We have food, we have security, we have religious freedom. Consequently, we can pursue careers, argue about the finer points of science-faith issues, discuss the role of national debt on science, etc. We depend on an array of networks and institutions - from high-speed internet to grocery store supply chains to the liberalized financial markets that let us borrow money for school, consumption, homes, and cars.
For the most part, awareness of those networks and systems is unnecessary. After all, that's why system administrators, engineers, CIA analysts, Wal-Mart operations researchers, and investment bankers are paid. As groups, we are far more risk-averse, and as groups do not want to either engage in extreme violent conflict with the police or otherwise engage in activities that mean long-term risk - existential, financial, or social - to our existing interests. I don't know if it's because we're so rich that populism has lost its wind - the last time there was this level of wealth inequality in this country was in 1929, yet protests about poverty are much lower in frequency and intensity now than a few decades ago.
My French friend was fascinated by the idea that the American dollar is fiat money - that is, nothing is underpinning the value of our currency than the confidence that we have in it. Maybe I've been spending too much time with STS people, but social constructivism as I understand it - the social construction of reality based on shared norms and social interactions, rather than some "external", "objective" measure - is imbedded even within our very economic system. Yes, quantitative metrics can determine whether the valuation of the dollar relative to the yuan (renminbi?) is representative of an optimal trading system, or if a given stock is overvalued compared to its industry counterparts, and yes, the damn code either compiles or it doesn't, but ultimately a great deal of what we depend upon - the dollar, the state, and even the value and stability of my own mind - is supported by confidence, individual and shared, and a complicated, convoluted, and probably undemocratic and dynamic process of consensus norms.
It's scary when we think about how dependent we are upon the smooth functioning of various extremely complicated systems - and this fear has been motivating Richard Garwin, a high-level science advisor to many administrations who spoke recently at Cornell about the need to develop an effective emergency action plan in the event of a nuclear terrorist attack in Manhattan - he puts it at roughly 20-50% in the next couple years. One of the barriers to this is the illusion that absolute security is possible. It's a politically intractable problem. How do you convince the public that you can't provide absolute security, that you need to devote money to preparing for the event of a major terrorist attack, where without adequate preparation, more people could die from hunger, panic, and lawlessness than in the original attack.
But the main point is this: America is strong, rich, and powerful because it has delivered, its citizens believe in it, and no other nation appears (yet) to marshal the coalition of personal resources (that underpin our intellectual, financial, martial and physical* resources) needed to compete with US power at the global level. And we have been able to do this because America has made good on many of its promises to its citizens. It's not quite, "we are rich because we think we are rich and think we want to be rich", but as absurd as it sounds, it's not too far off. We can focus our mental energies toward making the nation - as a motley crew of interests united by an overall self-interest in the maintenance of American power - stronger, richer, and smarter because security is guaranteed. And security is guaranteed by our continuous efforts along these lines. Chalmers Johnson says, correctly, that "Nowhere is it written that the American Empire goes on forever." But, to a large extent, so long as we believe in the possibility of a measure of security, and that our leaders are pursuing policies that do not reveal gross domestic signs to the contrary, we will not take to the streets, we will not burn cars, we will not give up HBO to read Mao's Red Book, and we will not be wrong in our refusal to sacrifice a measure of calculated ignorance for a measure of unreasonable paranoia.
I would argue that all of these things make protests in America far more controlled, and far less effective as an instrument of change.
(*physical resources are something in that world that social constructivism fails to account for, though the decision to exploit domestic reserves of coal, uranium, etc and form agreements with partners which possess strategic resources is subject to some elements of social construction.)
Our time at HMC provides an interesting example. During our time there was only two major protests that I knew of - one was against the Iraq war, and one was in support of Kerri Dunn. Both of those events were very orderly, limited to a few hours, and - damn it - were characterized by a few left-wing individuals who believed so much in institutions that they felt that top-down approaches were the only things that mattered. Remember SLAM? Remember that their platform and mission focused on getting the administration to sign a letter? This is not the platform of a revolutionary group - this is the platform of a group who, inspired by fiery rhetoric and revolutionary fervor, still trusted the process, and still possessed enough sense to see the power of institutional legitimacy compared with a few angry students. I was swept up in the fever like everyone else - but at no time did I feel that the institution had, by a failure, become irrelevant. Cosmetic changes may have been needed, but in the end, we trusted the Judiciary/Disciplinary Board with what could have been its most important decision to date - on the fate of those participating in the cross-burning - and we trusted the academic leadership enough to not turn them out of office. No one, to my knowledge, lost their jobs, though I and many others may have lost our sense of rationality.
As such, I no longer trust the protest to become the prime tool of social change. The uncoordinated violence of the banlieues cannot be tolerated in America, pre- or post-9/11. Organization of course matters, but the insurgency lies within ideas and economics, not Molotov cocktails.
Post-script: How did I do on the intellecto-arrogantometer?
+ 5 used unnecessary word in another language to show off, and maybe disguise the fact that I'm a monolingual American chauvinist.
+ 10 word described above is French
+ 5 used a case study
+ 5 x 2 = 10 cited a website for statistical data
+ 10 trivialized legitimate grievance of disenfranchised minorities and their use of violence to articulate their discontent
+10 quoted a vogue liberal decrying American Imperialism (though nowhere is it written in this essay that I think the American Empire is more bad than good)
- 10 didn't cite a source from the acceptable literature
- 10 Didn't use LaTeX
- 10 stated clearly a caveat concerning different measures of unemployment
- 2 was too lazy to check above caveat and resolve it
+5 somewhat quotable closing to the essay
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Comments on the Cornell Bus Pass issue
This post is in reference to a Cornell Facebook group post on the anticipated end of free bus passes for incoming and first- and second- year graduate students students.
I don't think a protest will accept policy, especially because of the fairness issue highlighted by another post in this group.
If you want to get free bus passes, it would probably be a good idea to make a case for the cause based on economic as well as environmental impact. Cornell grads are pretty smart, know how to handle simple formulas in excel, conduct decent surveys, and do literature reviews.
To make the case, a few questions have to be asked:
If the Cornell bus pass is revoked...
1. how many grad students will decide not to purchase a bus pass?
- could probably do an electronic survey, with control group more senior grad students (confounding variable: effect of classes on need for frequent transportation to campus)
2. how many grad students would try to drive to campus instead?
- could probably do an electronic survey, with control group more senior grad students (confounding variable: effect of classes on need for frequent transportation to campus)
- important because of parking crunch, carbon emissions from cars;
3. How would this affect the price that TCAT can charge local businesses for its advertisements?
- a significant downturn in public transit usage would mean a smaller audience for bus ads, making them less valuable to local businesses/charities that advertise on the bus
4. How would this affect the frequency and range of bus routes?
- if the impacts were geographically or temporally localized, certain bus routes would close
- this could lead to secondary effects along the lines of (1), (2) and (3)
5. Using (1) and additional statistics on distance to campus of grad student residences and properties of cars typically owned by grad students (e.g. MPG), how much additional greenhouse gas (GHG) and other emissions would result?
- mitigated somewhat if certain bus lines close
- could quantify by assigning a somewhat arbitrary anticipated market rate for GHG emission per ton
6. Using (2), and possibly estimates of the increased wear and tear on cars and maintenance costs, how would the decrease in disposable income of grad students affect certain sectors of the local economy?
- gas stations and mechanics would benefit
- consumer retailers might lose slightly
- I doubt the elasticity of demand for these goods has been measured for grad students; can you generalize from studies of regional/national consumer behavior?
7. What is the cost of the Omnibus pass for the university for each graduating class?
- important to compare with the costs outlined above
Calculate all of these, and probably a few other things. Either the cost-benefit analysis will come out in favor of the free bus pass, or it won't. Even if it doesn't you could make an argument about certain externalities that haven't quite been internalized, such as
- damage to Cornell's reputation for being green
- damage to student-administration relation
- damage to school's reputation in community
- increased financial pressure for some members of the graduate community (e.g. humanities students more impacted than the engineers/scientists)
- lost productivity from grad students taking time away from research to organize, petition, conduct a cost-benefit analysis, negotiate with the administration...
Ok, what other options? Those listed on the website include -
picket
petition
A petition is easy, though I'm pessimistic about the ability of it working. It's better than nothing though - someone volunteer to draft the text, and someone be responsible for consolidating the petitions into one document after they have about 10 signatories each, vetting them for repeats.
A picket could happen, though my experience with protests is that (1) if you don't get enough people, they look really, really sad; (2) even if you get a lot of people, they tend to have credibility if the cause is (a) universal in its impact, and (b) have a clear opponent, (c) avoid the taint of self-interest, (d) are attended by individuals with credibility.
Weber cites three sources of legitimacy - charismatic, institutional, and traditional. The student protest depends heavily on the first, where charisma is understood to be a combination of passion and rationality (i.e., a Nobel Laureate is often better than a convicted felon). By their nature protests are not institutionalized, though the existing institutional framework may exist through a set of established advocacy/environmental organizations. Legitimacy from tradition has also been hindered because of the failure of the protest to become as part of student culture as it was during the Vietnam war, its perceived powerlessness to stop the Iraq war, and a culture (vis a vis France) that prefers the security of rule of law to the liberty and risk of frequent labor/student protests.
Quite frankly, if you can find someone who has the ability to get a crowd worked up about bus passes without coming off as self-serving or quixotic, such a talent is squandered in graduate study and should be readily employed in resurrecting American populism. With roughly one-half to two-thirds of the graduate community not standing to lose from this policy, it will be short work to exploit that division to give the appearance that the protesters are self-serving first- and second-year students. Therefore, I would conclude that charismatic legitimacy will be absent from a protest.
So what do you do? Barring insurgency, which at some level could have been reflected in the Redbud Woods 2005 incident, I believe you are left to operate within the system. Organize a coalition of businesses and community interests likely to be impacted, as determined from the analysis outlined above. Then go to President Skorton and the Board of Trustees to make your case. I would assume that most of this analysis has been done internally; the student case will be to claim that certain costs were not accounted for in the economic analysis, and that these are sufficient to warrant a change in the policy.
My two cents. I'm not a policy analyst, or even a particularly competent student of organizational behavior. I'm actually a burned-out volunteer who got tired of seeing people protest and go home, or let ego interfere with a cause or mission, instead of working toward long-term, incremental changes in culture and valuations through the creation of institutions and the painstakingly slow process of winning hearts and minds. Best wishes on your efforts.
I don't think a protest will accept policy, especially because of the fairness issue highlighted by another post in this group.
If you want to get free bus passes, it would probably be a good idea to make a case for the cause based on economic as well as environmental impact. Cornell grads are pretty smart, know how to handle simple formulas in excel, conduct decent surveys, and do literature reviews.
To make the case, a few questions have to be asked:
If the Cornell bus pass is revoked...
1. how many grad students will decide not to purchase a bus pass?
- could probably do an electronic survey, with control group more senior grad students (confounding variable: effect of classes on need for frequent transportation to campus)
2. how many grad students would try to drive to campus instead?
- could probably do an electronic survey, with control group more senior grad students (confounding variable: effect of classes on need for frequent transportation to campus)
- important because of parking crunch, carbon emissions from cars;
3. How would this affect the price that TCAT can charge local businesses for its advertisements?
- a significant downturn in public transit usage would mean a smaller audience for bus ads, making them less valuable to local businesses/charities that advertise on the bus
4. How would this affect the frequency and range of bus routes?
- if the impacts were geographically or temporally localized, certain bus routes would close
- this could lead to secondary effects along the lines of (1), (2) and (3)
5. Using (1) and additional statistics on distance to campus of grad student residences and properties of cars typically owned by grad students (e.g. MPG), how much additional greenhouse gas (GHG) and other emissions would result?
- mitigated somewhat if certain bus lines close
- could quantify by assigning a somewhat arbitrary anticipated market rate for GHG emission per ton
6. Using (2), and possibly estimates of the increased wear and tear on cars and maintenance costs, how would the decrease in disposable income of grad students affect certain sectors of the local economy?
- gas stations and mechanics would benefit
- consumer retailers might lose slightly
- I doubt the elasticity of demand for these goods has been measured for grad students; can you generalize from studies of regional/national consumer behavior?
7. What is the cost of the Omnibus pass for the university for each graduating class?
- important to compare with the costs outlined above
Calculate all of these, and probably a few other things. Either the cost-benefit analysis will come out in favor of the free bus pass, or it won't. Even if it doesn't you could make an argument about certain externalities that haven't quite been internalized, such as
- damage to Cornell's reputation for being green
- damage to student-administration relation
- damage to school's reputation in community
- increased financial pressure for some members of the graduate community (e.g. humanities students more impacted than the engineers/scientists)
- lost productivity from grad students taking time away from research to organize, petition, conduct a cost-benefit analysis, negotiate with the administration...
Ok, what other options? Those listed on the website include -
picket
petition
A petition is easy, though I'm pessimistic about the ability of it working. It's better than nothing though - someone volunteer to draft the text, and someone be responsible for consolidating the petitions into one document after they have about 10 signatories each, vetting them for repeats.
A picket could happen, though my experience with protests is that (1) if you don't get enough people, they look really, really sad; (2) even if you get a lot of people, they tend to have credibility if the cause is (a) universal in its impact, and (b) have a clear opponent, (c) avoid the taint of self-interest, (d) are attended by individuals with credibility.
Weber cites three sources of legitimacy - charismatic, institutional, and traditional. The student protest depends heavily on the first, where charisma is understood to be a combination of passion and rationality (i.e., a Nobel Laureate is often better than a convicted felon). By their nature protests are not institutionalized, though the existing institutional framework may exist through a set of established advocacy/environmental organizations. Legitimacy from tradition has also been hindered because of the failure of the protest to become as part of student culture as it was during the Vietnam war, its perceived powerlessness to stop the Iraq war, and a culture (vis a vis France) that prefers the security of rule of law to the liberty and risk of frequent labor/student protests.
Quite frankly, if you can find someone who has the ability to get a crowd worked up about bus passes without coming off as self-serving or quixotic, such a talent is squandered in graduate study and should be readily employed in resurrecting American populism. With roughly one-half to two-thirds of the graduate community not standing to lose from this policy, it will be short work to exploit that division to give the appearance that the protesters are self-serving first- and second-year students. Therefore, I would conclude that charismatic legitimacy will be absent from a protest.
So what do you do? Barring insurgency, which at some level could have been reflected in the Redbud Woods 2005 incident, I believe you are left to operate within the system. Organize a coalition of businesses and community interests likely to be impacted, as determined from the analysis outlined above. Then go to President Skorton and the Board of Trustees to make your case. I would assume that most of this analysis has been done internally; the student case will be to claim that certain costs were not accounted for in the economic analysis, and that these are sufficient to warrant a change in the policy.
My two cents. I'm not a policy analyst, or even a particularly competent student of organizational behavior. I'm actually a burned-out volunteer who got tired of seeing people protest and go home, or let ego interfere with a cause or mission, instead of working toward long-term, incremental changes in culture and valuations through the creation of institutions and the painstakingly slow process of winning hearts and minds. Best wishes on your efforts.
Saturday, April 7, 2007
Wrinklies!
This morning I heard on NPR about a book titled Boomesday, a satirical work by Chris Buckley (former speechwriter for Bush41) describing a modest proposal that would solve the impending Social Security disaster caused by a mass exodus of Baby Boomers from the workforce. While I'm against -isms as much as the next aspiring limousine liberal, I find "Wrinklies" too irresistible and hilarious to let it pass without mention. Note: this is a NOVEL, not a detailed policy analysis of a serious issue.
Recognizing that fact, and also recognizing that for a modestly intelligent man I have completely neglected my personal finance obligations, I have recently opened a Roth IRA with Vanguard. Their targeted retirement funds have low expense ratios and enough international exposure that I can sleep better knowing that I have a modest hedge against a weakening dollar. (As a further hedge against inflation and a growing China, I also buried a stash of gold bullion, cheez whiz, and John Tesh CDs in the wilds of unwashed laundry that now decorate my room - my disgustingness provides a fairly foolproof security measure against theft.)
Finally, I had a wonderful dinner with a beautiful French postdoc. It's a shame I see too many flaws in academic life, because it does have its advantages...
Recognizing that fact, and also recognizing that for a modestly intelligent man I have completely neglected my personal finance obligations, I have recently opened a Roth IRA with Vanguard. Their targeted retirement funds have low expense ratios and enough international exposure that I can sleep better knowing that I have a modest hedge against a weakening dollar. (As a further hedge against inflation and a growing China, I also buried a stash of gold bullion, cheez whiz, and John Tesh CDs in the wilds of unwashed laundry that now decorate my room - my disgustingness provides a fairly foolproof security measure against theft.)
Finally, I had a wonderful dinner with a beautiful French postdoc. It's a shame I see too many flaws in academic life, because it does have its advantages...
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
The Face of the Future
I have a new cousin! Mika Hsu Kotsubo was born on March 19. Here she is, held by brother Caleb.
I've been learning a lot about organizational theory lately, and so it's always helpful to step back from the somewhat depressing conclusions regarding institutionalization and the likelihood of success for military transformation to enjoy the beauty of life.
When I think about it, I think that's the one thing that has me most tempted to jump ship and do policy work. Astronomy is beautiful in it of itself; it has no greater purpose than simply learning about the universe. Yes, there are spin-offs, commercial and military (though it seems the tech transfer direction goes military -> civilian)
but the true product is beauty and greater understanding. That, if nothing else, has been the casualty of an increasing siege mentality in this country. In my home, in my community, and in the halls of power, the emphasis on security trumps all else.
A state needs to ensure the security of its citizens. At the same time, a state must ensure its security by maintaining not only a vast overseas network and force projection capabilities, but also a strong domestic economy, a creative and innovative workforce, and the spirit and essence of what makes us who we are - an identity grounded in freedom, democracy, the rule of law, and justice. We must be the good guys, right? If not, what are we doing?
This point is somewhat vague, and Jake has rightly called me on many of my arguments, which are flaccid and meandering. I have a lot of concrete comments, based on articles written by Donald Rumsfeld and Barry Posen for my miltech class. I'll write more on this when I have had more sleep and less pressing work.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Current priorities
Life without a mission is pointless. This seems to be valid whether one approaches this from the Christian or Existentialist perspective. Therefore, in an effort to better focus my efforts and mind, I have outlined the following missions for the next five years:
Near-term:
1. develop an efficient and effective system of logging time and researching issues
2. set up an automatic system of retirement investment, charity donations
3. eat healthily
4. work out 5 times a week, 3 cardio, 2 strength
5. expand and develop mentoring role in classroom and church
6. plans to repair academic shortcomings
Short-term (<1 year):
1. implementation of science mentoring/education reform in my home K-12 district
Medium-term (2-5 years):
1. completion of a PhD in either Astronomy or another field that will place me in a position to work in a managerial/policy position
3. help test and deploy IDL course and licensing to 4-year colleges with astronomy programs
Long-term (> 5 years):
1. restore funding and a proactive culture concerning education/public outreach in NASA and the astronomy community
2. reconcilation between moderates in science and faith communities; marginalization of extremists
3. comprehensive K-12 science education reform
4. assistance in developing and maintaining conventional and strategic arms control
5. improving effectiveness of regulatory regime to govern outer space
6. understand and be able to access national players in matters of science policy
7. assist in the abolition of absolute poverty in this generation
8. assist in detection of extraterrestrial life through direct detection of a planet with significant oxygen
9. Aid the commercialization of outer space
10. fall in love, get married, and have a wonderful family
This list will of course be updated as time goes by.
Near-term:
1. develop an efficient and effective system of logging time and researching issues
2. set up an automatic system of retirement investment, charity donations
3. eat healthily
4. work out 5 times a week, 3 cardio, 2 strength
5. expand and develop mentoring role in classroom and church
6. plans to repair academic shortcomings
Short-term (<1 year):
1. implementation of science mentoring/education reform in my home K-12 district
Medium-term (2-5 years):
1. completion of a PhD in either Astronomy or another field that will place me in a position to work in a managerial/policy position
3. help test and deploy IDL course and licensing to 4-year colleges with astronomy programs
Long-term (> 5 years):
1. restore funding and a proactive culture concerning education/public outreach in NASA and the astronomy community
2. reconcilation between moderates in science and faith communities; marginalization of extremists
3. comprehensive K-12 science education reform
4. assistance in developing and maintaining conventional and strategic arms control
5. improving effectiveness of regulatory regime to govern outer space
6. understand and be able to access national players in matters of science policy
7. assist in the abolition of absolute poverty in this generation
8. assist in detection of extraterrestrial life through direct detection of a planet with significant oxygen
9. Aid the commercialization of outer space
10. fall in love, get married, and have a wonderful family
This list will of course be updated as time goes by.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Thinking clearly
Life is simple, really:
1. try to live by a consistent moral code
2. Knowledge has diminishing marginal returns, as does preparation, but they usually diminish well past the stopping point of most people.prepare as much as possible by learning as much as possible. Plan.
3. looks, charisma, charm and leadership matter tremendously - cultivate these.
4. be a good judge of character
5. The healthy mind needs a healthy body.
6. A belief in genetic determinism will hold you back. Use environmental determinism to your advantage.
7. Some questions have no answer, or no good answers.
I'll add to these later. But these are a good place to start.
1. try to live by a consistent moral code
2. Knowledge has diminishing marginal returns, as does preparation, but they usually diminish well past the stopping point of most people.prepare as much as possible by learning as much as possible. Plan.
3. looks, charisma, charm and leadership matter tremendously - cultivate these.
4. be a good judge of character
5. The healthy mind needs a healthy body.
6. A belief in genetic determinism will hold you back. Use environmental determinism to your advantage.
7. Some questions have no answer, or no good answers.
I'll add to these later. But these are a good place to start.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
The Arecibo Question
I've had some interest in space politics for quite some time. An excellent source can be found at www.spacepolitics.com. Jeff Foust is a graduate of MIT in Planetary Science and is now employed at the Futron Corporation. In addition to spacepolitics.com, he runs the Space Review, a free online space policy newsletter.
For those of you that don't know, Arecibo Observatory has been identified in the Senior Review as a target of the budgetary axe. Its operating budget of 10.5 million dollars will be reduced to 8 million for FY 2007, with a further reduction to 4 million in 2011. Funding of 4 million per year is actually contingent on matching funds secured from non-NSF sources.
There are other complicating factors: 5 million for paint loaned by Cornell to NSF, which NSF will repay over the next few years; 1 million that is dedicated to the radar program; new instrument upgrades; appeals for international funding; the consultation (if any) between NSF-AST and NSF-ATM, the latter of which contributes some funding to Arecibo; China's desire to build an Arecibo+active surface observatory.... I will edit this post later with more specific budgetary information.
The key question is the following: what options are available for Cornell/NAIC to fight the Senior Review recommendation? I have identified the following:
1. Stop the Senior Review from becoming NSF policy
Cornell/NAIC is attempting this as I write. They sent a document criticizing inconsistencies in mandate and factual information in the Senior Review to Wayne Van Citters, the head of NSF's Astronomy Division. In addition to incorrectly claiming that surveys would be done by 2011 (the actual date is closer to 2015), the Senior Review exceeded its mandate (identify $30 million in assets that might be reallocated) by making specific recommendations for facility closure. One reason why the Senior Review members may have done this? Well, a number of the members have affiliations with proposed projects (e.g. LSST, TMT) that will require funding.
Either this is done on a purely factual basis (i.e., you screwed up the info we gave you), or intrapolitical stuff will fall out. (How significant is it that Wayne Van Citters has not visited Arecibo? Will my former college president, Jon Strauss, a member of the National Science Board, be in a position to decide/steer NSF's ultimate decision on the Senior Review? Should Cornell send Michael Crosby a bunch of Godiva candy, given my personal experience that he likes chocolate?)
Needless to say, this is messy, especially since NASA will invariably be dragged into this mess. NASA and NSF have played football with the funding for the radar program for some time; it's unclear whether the handoff will take place, or if there will be a fumble. Cornell has drawn the line in the sand, stating that without additional funding, the radar program will be cut.
2. Appeal to Congress to save Arecibo Observatory
I call this approach the "Hubble gambit". This approach is bad for a number of reasons.
The Hubble Gambit succeeded for the following reasons:
a. Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) made it a high priority for NASA to make sure ST-9 (the servicing mission to Hubble) by threatening to withold funding from NASA. I imagine that she was influenced in part because Goddard Space Flight Center is located in her state, and the end of Hubble meant the end of the Space Telescope Science Institute and quite a few jobs.
b. Hubble makes beautiful pictures that were widely distributed to the public. Many of the Astronomy Pictures of the Day (APOD) are taken with Hubble. Optical instrumentation is considerably more developed than infrared, and as such can detect a great deal of beautiful structure in astrophysical phenomena.
c. University of Colorado - Boulder, the Southwestern Research Institute, and Ball Aerospace had spent $60 million to build the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph. When I visited Boulder, this was identified as the single most expensive museum piece this side of the Mississippi. Not completely sure if that's true (where is Blue Boy?) but I got the point.
How does Arecibo measure on these points?
a. Arecibo Observatory is located in Puerto Rico, which has no voting representation in Congress. The non-voting member can lobby, but since PR depends heavily on subsidies (and enjoys tax-free status), he has little clout and motivation to push too hard.
b. Pretty pictures are nice. Radio does not make pretty pictures. It creates wonderful science, but the images I see tend to be reddish orange blobs. These images are somewhat more difficult to interpret.
c. There are new instruments that are being installed at Arecibo. However, these instruments do not require delivery and maintenance by a special launch vehicle or a crew, which for political reasons, need to go into space and do something- anything- until 2010.
In addition, it's probably a bad idea to try to lobby Congress. The politicization of science has received a fair amount of press, especially in - but not limited to - this administration. The Republican War on Science, by Chris Mooney, is on my bookshelf, waiting to be read.
Brian Dewhurst at the National Academy of Sciences, sitting on the Space Studies Board, points out in a Space Review article the many reasons why the Decadal Survey is good for both Congress and science. (The Decadal Survey is conducted every 10 years in the astronomical community, and identifies the best projects to support.) In short, Congress and the science community appreciate the process because both feel the money is being well spent, without insidious influence.
The Hubble gambit harmed this relationship, and it is probably for this reason that NASA Administrator Mike Griffin has not reinstated the scientific advisory committees that were decommissioned during a reorganization following the departure of Administrator Sean O'Keefe. Doing so for Arecibo would probably rip the breach further, frustrate politicians, and invite the scientific community to join political camps.
3. Lobby Congress for an overall increase in NSF's funding
I believe this approach is the best. The American Competitiveness Initiative proposes a doubling of funding for NSF by 2010. While NSF-AST's share won't quite be $30 million, it will be significant. Combined with international funding and a somewhat reduced program, it should be possible to keep Arecibo running well after 2011.
I think this approach also has merit in a broader sense. Astronomy is uniquely positioned to be an excellent way to introduce young children to science. If NASA and NSF-AST were willing to develop effective curricula and standards - incorporating some of the goals and recommendations outlined in various science ed reports from the American Association of Colleges and Universities, the National Academics, the National Science Foundation, and others - then we'd be well on our way of improving scientific education and training. This is timely, especially given that No Child Left Behind will begin testing for scientific competence. Once NCLB finds what everyone knows (America is pretty bad at science), the curriculum will have developed to meet the political/policy goal of repairing K-12 science education.
Under this broader framework, I think Cornell/NAIC can successfully point to their record and active programs (scientific and educational/public outreach) to say that Arecibo deserves to be saved. I'm fascinated by ALFALFA's organizational structure. I think Professors Haynes and Giovanelli have an excellent collaboration that promotes science not only at Research I institutes but also at liberal arts colleges. Such organization can and ought to be applied to other scientific programs that will promote earlier and more comprehensive entry of America's youth into the scientific process.
All this and I still have a paper to write...
For those of you that don't know, Arecibo Observatory has been identified in the Senior Review as a target of the budgetary axe. Its operating budget of 10.5 million dollars will be reduced to 8 million for FY 2007, with a further reduction to 4 million in 2011. Funding of 4 million per year is actually contingent on matching funds secured from non-NSF sources.
There are other complicating factors: 5 million for paint loaned by Cornell to NSF, which NSF will repay over the next few years; 1 million that is dedicated to the radar program; new instrument upgrades; appeals for international funding; the consultation (if any) between NSF-AST and NSF-ATM, the latter of which contributes some funding to Arecibo; China's desire to build an Arecibo+active surface observatory.... I will edit this post later with more specific budgetary information.
The key question is the following: what options are available for Cornell/NAIC to fight the Senior Review recommendation? I have identified the following:
1. Stop the Senior Review from becoming NSF policy
Cornell/NAIC is attempting this as I write. They sent a document criticizing inconsistencies in mandate and factual information in the Senior Review to Wayne Van Citters, the head of NSF's Astronomy Division. In addition to incorrectly claiming that surveys would be done by 2011 (the actual date is closer to 2015), the Senior Review exceeded its mandate (identify $30 million in assets that might be reallocated) by making specific recommendations for facility closure. One reason why the Senior Review members may have done this? Well, a number of the members have affiliations with proposed projects (e.g. LSST, TMT) that will require funding.
Either this is done on a purely factual basis (i.e., you screwed up the info we gave you), or intrapolitical stuff will fall out. (How significant is it that Wayne Van Citters has not visited Arecibo? Will my former college president, Jon Strauss, a member of the National Science Board, be in a position to decide/steer NSF's ultimate decision on the Senior Review? Should Cornell send Michael Crosby a bunch of Godiva candy, given my personal experience that he likes chocolate?)
Needless to say, this is messy, especially since NASA will invariably be dragged into this mess. NASA and NSF have played football with the funding for the radar program for some time; it's unclear whether the handoff will take place, or if there will be a fumble. Cornell has drawn the line in the sand, stating that without additional funding, the radar program will be cut.
2. Appeal to Congress to save Arecibo Observatory
I call this approach the "Hubble gambit". This approach is bad for a number of reasons.
The Hubble Gambit succeeded for the following reasons:
a. Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) made it a high priority for NASA to make sure ST-9 (the servicing mission to Hubble) by threatening to withold funding from NASA. I imagine that she was influenced in part because Goddard Space Flight Center is located in her state, and the end of Hubble meant the end of the Space Telescope Science Institute and quite a few jobs.
b. Hubble makes beautiful pictures that were widely distributed to the public. Many of the Astronomy Pictures of the Day (APOD) are taken with Hubble. Optical instrumentation is considerably more developed than infrared, and as such can detect a great deal of beautiful structure in astrophysical phenomena.
c. University of Colorado - Boulder, the Southwestern Research Institute, and Ball Aerospace had spent $60 million to build the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph. When I visited Boulder, this was identified as the single most expensive museum piece this side of the Mississippi. Not completely sure if that's true (where is Blue Boy?) but I got the point.
How does Arecibo measure on these points?
a. Arecibo Observatory is located in Puerto Rico, which has no voting representation in Congress. The non-voting member can lobby, but since PR depends heavily on subsidies (and enjoys tax-free status), he has little clout and motivation to push too hard.
b. Pretty pictures are nice. Radio does not make pretty pictures. It creates wonderful science, but the images I see tend to be reddish orange blobs. These images are somewhat more difficult to interpret.
c. There are new instruments that are being installed at Arecibo. However, these instruments do not require delivery and maintenance by a special launch vehicle or a crew, which for political reasons, need to go into space and do something- anything- until 2010.
In addition, it's probably a bad idea to try to lobby Congress. The politicization of science has received a fair amount of press, especially in - but not limited to - this administration. The Republican War on Science, by Chris Mooney, is on my bookshelf, waiting to be read.
Brian Dewhurst at the National Academy of Sciences, sitting on the Space Studies Board, points out in a Space Review article the many reasons why the Decadal Survey is good for both Congress and science. (The Decadal Survey is conducted every 10 years in the astronomical community, and identifies the best projects to support.) In short, Congress and the science community appreciate the process because both feel the money is being well spent, without insidious influence.
The Hubble gambit harmed this relationship, and it is probably for this reason that NASA Administrator Mike Griffin has not reinstated the scientific advisory committees that were decommissioned during a reorganization following the departure of Administrator Sean O'Keefe. Doing so for Arecibo would probably rip the breach further, frustrate politicians, and invite the scientific community to join political camps.
3. Lobby Congress for an overall increase in NSF's funding
I believe this approach is the best. The American Competitiveness Initiative proposes a doubling of funding for NSF by 2010. While NSF-AST's share won't quite be $30 million, it will be significant. Combined with international funding and a somewhat reduced program, it should be possible to keep Arecibo running well after 2011.
I think this approach also has merit in a broader sense. Astronomy is uniquely positioned to be an excellent way to introduce young children to science. If NASA and NSF-AST were willing to develop effective curricula and standards - incorporating some of the goals and recommendations outlined in various science ed reports from the American Association of Colleges and Universities, the National Academics, the National Science Foundation, and others - then we'd be well on our way of improving scientific education and training. This is timely, especially given that No Child Left Behind will begin testing for scientific competence. Once NCLB finds what everyone knows (America is pretty bad at science), the curriculum will have developed to meet the political/policy goal of repairing K-12 science education.
Under this broader framework, I think Cornell/NAIC can successfully point to their record and active programs (scientific and educational/public outreach) to say that Arecibo deserves to be saved. I'm fascinated by ALFALFA's organizational structure. I think Professors Haynes and Giovanelli have an excellent collaboration that promotes science not only at Research I institutes but also at liberal arts colleges. Such organization can and ought to be applied to other scientific programs that will promote earlier and more comprehensive entry of America's youth into the scientific process.
All this and I still have a paper to write...
Friday, January 19, 2007
Death of Hrant Dink
I have created this blog to discuss and refine my conceptions of the world, to "see the world as it is" as astronomer/international policy expert Chris Chyba once pleaded at a Cornell colloquium.
This may be an odd first post for my blog, but I think the death of Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink is a worthy one. A brief bio appears on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hrant_Dink) and armeniapedia (http://www.armeniapedia.org/index.php?title=Hrant_Dink). There is also a facebook group discussing Mr. Dink's death (http://cornell.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2228814238&ref=nf).
I am neither Armenian nor Turkish. I am simply a man who by circumstance and education came to learn about Europe and appreciate the vision that took a continent asunder and built something more peaceful and humane.
I have been studying speeches for Toastmasters. In recognition of Martin Luther King's birthday, I read his sermon "I've Been To The Mountaintop", given the night before he was assassinated. In it he says that if the Almighty gave him the opportunity to live at any time, he would choose to live in his present, a few years past the midpoint of the 20th century.
"Now that's a strange statement to make because the world is all messed up. The nation is sick, trouble is in the land, confusion all around. That's a strange statement. But I know, somehow, that only when it is dark enough can you see the stars."
Even astronomers seek the end of night and greet dawn with passion.
The next day, Robert Kennedy was on his way to a political rally in Indianapolis when he heard about MLK's assassination. He ignored the warnings of his staffers and continued to the rally. When he looked out at the crowd of mostly poor urban African-Americans, he realized that they did not yet know that King was dead. He broke the news to them in halting, pained, impromptu remarks: (http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/rfkonmlkdeath.html; the linked page plays a piece of "Mad World" performed by Sacre for the Donnie Darko soundtrack.
). At one point he quotes Aeschylus, a Greek poet, by saying,
Even in our sleep, pain which cannot forget
falls drop by drop upon the heart,
until, in our own despair,
against our will,
comes wisdom
through the awful grace of God.
I doubt Robert was thinking about the relevance of Aeschylus to this particular audience. I think that he forgot politics for a brief moment and betrayed his privileged upbringing. Yet he also revealed to that crowd his grief, his anguish, for a man with whom his relationship evolved from mutual distrust to deep friendship and shared vision.
This speech inevitably leads to an examination of the eulogy for Robert F. Kennedy, read by his brother Ted, but largely in his own words. The phrase from his speech to South African students on the Day of Affirmation is inscribed as his epitaph: "Every time a man strikes out against injustice, he brings forth a tiny ripple of hope..."
Hrant Dink was such a man. My knowledge of him started this evening, but in the coming days, through conversations and readings, I will come to know a man who studied science, then studied literature to find his calling, his voice, his mission in newsprint and nonviolent resistance to the burial of past unmourned, or rights promised, but unrealized.
In the coming days I may learn of his personal failing, of errors in judgment, of a lack of objectivity (though by all accounts it was his balanced editorials and deep desire for reconciliation, not retribution or reparation, for nations and peoples.
In the coming days analysts will explore the impact of his death on the prospects of the accession of Turkey to the European Union. Politicians within the European Parliament may well use this to further their own domestic agendas by using his death to reinforce reasons - reasonable and outlandish - why Turkey should not join Europe. In the coming days some will compare his assassination to that of Rafik Hariri, and pontificate on whether the event will similarly lead to the promise of democratic reforms and a peaceful revolution within Turkey, and to the extent that such a revolution would realize ultimate success.
I have neither the professional competence nor the appetite to speculate on the political and economic consequences of the death of one man. I will content myself with listening to more learned individuals, here and around the world, who grapple with greater grief and torment that I may share, much diluted, but can never fully understand.
I hope that the Turkish state, in recognition of his service to the people - if not the country - will permit Dink to be interred on Turkish soil, not to lay claim to him as the ruling elite's own, but instead to recognize that he belongs to the people, that out of his death - and especially his life - should come symbol and substance of contemplation and reform. It is one of many blessings of America that there is no law against insulting "Americanness" - our jails, I fear, are crowded enough. Those of us who love the freedom of the newsprint, who have had our hands dirtied by its filmy ink, who have defended the freedom of the press, even if only in the context of a high school paper, can perhaps appreciate this man and his heart, if not his politics.
My prayers to his family, to the Turkish and Armenian nations and peoples, and to others around the world who are touched by his death or life.
This may be an odd first post for my blog, but I think the death of Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink is a worthy one. A brief bio appears on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hrant_Dink) and armeniapedia (http://www.armeniapedia.org/index.php?title=Hrant_Dink). There is also a facebook group discussing Mr. Dink's death (http://cornell.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2228814238&ref=nf).
I am neither Armenian nor Turkish. I am simply a man who by circumstance and education came to learn about Europe and appreciate the vision that took a continent asunder and built something more peaceful and humane.
I have been studying speeches for Toastmasters. In recognition of Martin Luther King's birthday, I read his sermon "I've Been To The Mountaintop", given the night before he was assassinated. In it he says that if the Almighty gave him the opportunity to live at any time, he would choose to live in his present, a few years past the midpoint of the 20th century.
"Now that's a strange statement to make because the world is all messed up. The nation is sick, trouble is in the land, confusion all around. That's a strange statement. But I know, somehow, that only when it is dark enough can you see the stars."
Even astronomers seek the end of night and greet dawn with passion.
The next day, Robert Kennedy was on his way to a political rally in Indianapolis when he heard about MLK's assassination. He ignored the warnings of his staffers and continued to the rally. When he looked out at the crowd of mostly poor urban African-Americans, he realized that they did not yet know that King was dead. He broke the news to them in halting, pained, impromptu remarks: (http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/rfkonmlkdeath.html; the linked page plays a piece of "Mad World" performed by Sacre for the Donnie Darko soundtrack.
). At one point he quotes Aeschylus, a Greek poet, by saying,
Even in our sleep, pain which cannot forget
falls drop by drop upon the heart,
until, in our own despair,
against our will,
comes wisdom
through the awful grace of God.
I doubt Robert was thinking about the relevance of Aeschylus to this particular audience. I think that he forgot politics for a brief moment and betrayed his privileged upbringing. Yet he also revealed to that crowd his grief, his anguish, for a man with whom his relationship evolved from mutual distrust to deep friendship and shared vision.
This speech inevitably leads to an examination of the eulogy for Robert F. Kennedy, read by his brother Ted, but largely in his own words. The phrase from his speech to South African students on the Day of Affirmation is inscribed as his epitaph: "Every time a man strikes out against injustice, he brings forth a tiny ripple of hope..."
Hrant Dink was such a man. My knowledge of him started this evening, but in the coming days, through conversations and readings, I will come to know a man who studied science, then studied literature to find his calling, his voice, his mission in newsprint and nonviolent resistance to the burial of past unmourned, or rights promised, but unrealized.
In the coming days I may learn of his personal failing, of errors in judgment, of a lack of objectivity (though by all accounts it was his balanced editorials and deep desire for reconciliation, not retribution or reparation, for nations and peoples.
In the coming days analysts will explore the impact of his death on the prospects of the accession of Turkey to the European Union. Politicians within the European Parliament may well use this to further their own domestic agendas by using his death to reinforce reasons - reasonable and outlandish - why Turkey should not join Europe. In the coming days some will compare his assassination to that of Rafik Hariri, and pontificate on whether the event will similarly lead to the promise of democratic reforms and a peaceful revolution within Turkey, and to the extent that such a revolution would realize ultimate success.
I have neither the professional competence nor the appetite to speculate on the political and economic consequences of the death of one man. I will content myself with listening to more learned individuals, here and around the world, who grapple with greater grief and torment that I may share, much diluted, but can never fully understand.
I hope that the Turkish state, in recognition of his service to the people - if not the country - will permit Dink to be interred on Turkish soil, not to lay claim to him as the ruling elite's own, but instead to recognize that he belongs to the people, that out of his death - and especially his life - should come symbol and substance of contemplation and reform. It is one of many blessings of America that there is no law against insulting "Americanness" - our jails, I fear, are crowded enough. Those of us who love the freedom of the newsprint, who have had our hands dirtied by its filmy ink, who have defended the freedom of the press, even if only in the context of a high school paper, can perhaps appreciate this man and his heart, if not his politics.
My prayers to his family, to the Turkish and Armenian nations and peoples, and to others around the world who are touched by his death or life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)