Wednesday, August 20, 2003

The Right Hates America. They hate the prospect that gay people might get married.  They hate dissent.  They hate any form of criticism of their ruling party.  They hate the separation between church and state.  They hate a woman's right to choose.  They hate being forced to choose between a clean environment and corporate welfare.  They hate the prospect of losing their guns.  They hate being asked to sacrifice anything past racism has given them.  They hate the idea that market forces might not be uber alles, because that invalidates a great deal.  They hate people who demand some form of proof that their policies work, people who don't share their faith.  They hate people who commit crimes but also hate people who don't commit them, by supporting the death penalty for innocent people.  They hate people who are committed to principals, instead of probability-driven lives (as in, I probably won't get falsely arrested and, well, if someone does, they probably did something else wrong, or it's just their tough luck). Yes, these are just a bunch of accusations.  Thusly I amuse myself.  I am a little sick of reading conblogs that declare the hatred of America by the Left.  I perceive quite the opposite.  I think a goodly number of people on the Right stand for the destruction of the freedoms that make America great.  They need to be fought. 5:21:16 PM    comment []

Why is Gasoline So Energy-Dense? We keep running up against the "problem" of gasoline being so darn good at being a fuel.  I really need to gain a better understanding of exactly why this is...it's been driving me nuts.  I am quite sure there are some very good reaons, in the chemical/physical sense, why gasoline has so much energy locked up inside of it.  My basic (and probably faulty) understanding is that the chemical process by which petroleum is produced involves a lot of time and energy from the sun, which gets locked up somehow, in the crude. When we burn it we're basically combining it with oxygen in the air and the resulting by-product needs a lot less energy to maintain its molecular state.  Said energy is released as heat and motion, which we harness to get various effects (in the case of cars, mechanical effects like rolling). God I hope that's marginally accurate.  I can't believe that I don't know exactly how petroleum is formed.  I think the reason it's bugging me is that I'm ten or so chapters into "A Short History of Nearly Everything", by Bill Bryson.  So far it's a fascinating look at exactly how we know a whole bunch of things.  What we know is important, but modern cynics are interested in how as well.  Ultimately that's what politics are about, in a way -- you want to know how someone know political fact X, or takes position Y.  What truly lies underneath? I thought that by gaining this understanding about the world of science, I might gain insight into the political world as well.  The jury is still out -- I have a book to finish first. 4:30:40 PM    comment []

The Disconnection Theory. Every once in a while it's a good idea to pick an extreme position and see what arguments you can come up with for it.  For the sake of argument, let's say that invading Iraq was a bad idea, and that the best course of action for America is simply to detach itself from the Middle East.  Many will argue that we created a lot of the problems over there, but...well, let's push a few suppositions: We disconnect ourselves in the military sense.  This means we pull the Army out, plain and simple.  It also means that we pull support from Israel, which has created an artificial imbalance of power. We offer financial assistance to the UN, for humanitarian aid only, paid for with some of that withdrawl money (see 1).  We could probably offer massive aid for a tiny fraction of what we're currently spending. We make it plain to the entire world that any future government involvement in terrorism, either through direct support or through "looking the other way" that results in any terrorism directed at America, will result in severe economic sanctions, followed by a graduated, predictable set of military activities.  Such activities would start with relatively mild effects, such as destruction of particular civilian buildings (announced in advance), escalate to destruction of civilian infrastructure (power, water), escalate again to political infrastructure (commons houses, castles, and other government institutions).  This military campaign will be conducted from the air, when necessary.  No government on the earth can stop American air power, at the moment. We focus our efforts (and therefore cash) on becoming "the good guys", period.  We massively increase spending on humanitarian aid.  We engage the rest of the world, by inviting hundreds of thousands of students and political leaders from all over the world to study, free of charge, at new Universities created expressly for this purpose.  These Universities cover a wide range of disciplines, but have a special focus on international relations.  Each is encouraged to become a microcosm similar in intent to the UN. I guess this isn't really a disconnection theory.  It's a "military disconnection" theory.  Anyway, it's a rambling afternoon... 4:25:51 PM    comment []