Accidental Blogger

A general interest blog

  • April is the six month anniversary of Accidental Blogger.  Except for a short hiatus necessitated by travel, I have kept up with blogging on an almost daily basis. I have loved every moment of it.

    The diligence has taken its toll – I feel a bit jaded. For example, today there are several interesting ideas buzzing around in my head but I cannot bring myself to collect my thoughts enough to construct a blog post.  Which is not a good sign. Also, my attention to the blog has to some extent, taken time away from some other leisure activities – especially reading. I therefore decided to slow down a bit and perhaps not post new items daily. Accidental Blogger now has some regular readers and is also on the blog roll of several blogs. Other bloggers have been incredibly nice with their links. But all said and done, I have decided to take a bit of a break to refresh my mind.

    I will write less frequently for a while – make a post when I feel there is something really compelling to say or just when I feel enthusiastic. In the meanwhile, I will continue to link to interesting stories that I may come across and also bring to the front some of my older posts. Readers who have been with me from the beginning may have seen them but for newer readers they will be fresh material.  There are other guest authors here. If one (or more) of them feels inclined to write something, there will be more new material on the blog. Until then it may be slow going.

    Today I will bring to the front page an older post with a matching title which some of you may enjoy reading (or rereading). Please see below.

  • Matt at Cerulean Blue has the insider’s info on who else was in the running.

  • “The great mass of people will more easily fall victim
    to a big lie than to a small one.”

    Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (1925)

    And the most egregious lies through human history have been told in the name of god and religion. Greed, exploitation, domination and aggression – all otherwise unattractive traits, gain societal sanction when they are dressed up in religious terms. Religion is not only an alibi for blatantly selfish motives to be packaged as common good, it is also the most artful escape hatch. Those who bolster their actions and choices as a message from god, cannot be wrong and therefore need not take responsiblity for their dismal failures. What argument can one construct against the divine voice with only the human tools of reason and rationality? 

    Osama bin Laden has no compunction in sending impressionable Muslim youths to their untimely deaths by invoking god and religion. But Osama is a turbaned savage sitting in a cave, right?  We take his rant for what it is – scary and cynical manipulation by a deranged fanatic.  But what are we to think when the president of the United States, the most powerful and technologically advanced nation, invokes god to justify an immoral war which kills and maims hundreds of thousands – how scary is that?

    One would have hoped that in the twenty first century, with the not so distant memory of the human carnage of WW II, responsible world leaders would scrupulously avoid mixing race, religion and ethnicity with geo-political considerations. But bad habits, especially ones that have been hard wired into our fragile psyche over thousands of years, are not lightly shed. George W. Bush was elected and re-elected by Americans who find religiosity of their leaders a more endearing quality than their competence, honesty and intelligence. The world is paying a heavy price for that simple minded miscalculation. (Some are having sobering second thoughts.)

    Even after the havoc he has wreaked in Iraq, Bush recently justified (in relatively subdued tones) his wild Iraqi adventure and implied once again that his actions were guided by God. He acknowledged making mistakes in a grudging and generic way but not about specifics such as troop levels, WMD and the whole dishonest basis for the stupid war spearheaded by evil minds. I shudder to think what his ventriloquist from heaven is telling him to do in Iran – he hasn’t told us yet. Those who claim direct communication with other worldly forces for their earthly actions are either lying or deluding themselves.  In both cases, it is dangerous to vest extraordinary powers in such unreliable hands.

    "President Bush today said he had tried to avoid war with Iraq "diplomatically to the max."

    Speaking to a business group in Irvine, Ca., he admitted mistakes were made in planning for the Iraq invasion, but he defended the troop level, saying "it was the troop level necessary to do the job," and he would commit the same number if given a second chance.

    The remarks came as another former general joined seven others who in recent days have called for the resignation of Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, saying he had mismanaged the planning and execution of the war.

    Bush also explained, in unusually stark terms, how his belief in God influences his foreign policy. "I base a lot of my foreign policy decisions on some things that I think are true," he said. "One, I believe there’s an Almighty. And, secondly, I believe one of the great gifts of the Almighty is the desire in everybody’s soul, regardless of what you look like or where you live, to be free.

    "I believe liberty is universal. I believe people want to be free. And I know that democracies do not war with each other."

    Bush said he’d sat in a California church on Sunday near a mother and stepfather grieving for their son who had been killed in Iraq. "I also want to let you know that before you commit troops that you must do everything that you can to solve the problem diplomatically," he commented. "And I can look you in the eye and tell you I feel I tried to solve the problem diplomatically to the max and would have committed troops both in Afghanistan and Iraq, knowing what I know today."

    In his remarks, the president repeatedly referred to the need to stay in Iraq to deny terrorists a "safe haven." He asserted, according to the White House transcript that, "Iraq has — had weapons of mass destruction and has the knowledge as to how to produce weapons of mass destruction." He also said that our enemies "know, and it doesn’t take much to realize, that when you put carnage on our TV screens, it causes us to weep."

    He also said: "It’s not easy work, by the way, to go from tyranny to democracy. We had kind of a round go ourself, if you look back at our history. My Secretary of State’s relatives were enslaved in the United States even though we had a Constitution that said all were — that believed in the dignity, or at least proclaimed to believe in the dignity of all. The Articles of Confederation wasn’t exactly a real smooth start for our government to begin. And what you’re watching on your TV screens is a new democracy emerging."

    Update: A reader feels that I have misrepresented Bush’s statement here. He said that nowhere in the above article does George Bush claim that he has "spoken" to God. But he does claim to know what the "Almighty’s" desire is. He must have learnt that from some form of communication with the Almighty. But it was not that interpretation alone which led me to write what I did. I felt confident of writing the title of this post from knowing what Bush has said before. Please see an earlier post where Bush clearly and unequivocally describes a direct dialogue with God (on a first name basis) in deciding his policies. I should have provided that link here. So, it isn’t my imagination and it is not misrepresentation. For those who are too pressed for time to read the entire article, I will copy the relevant portion here. The White House has never contradicted the account.

    Nabil Shaath (erstwhile Palestinian Foreign Minister) says: "President Bush said to all of us: ‘I’m driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq !" And I did. And now, again, I feel God’s words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I’m gonna do it.”

  • Find out what it means to have a president who thinks he has been empowered by God, builds his foreign policy on preventive war and when you disagree, says, "Be silent; I see it, if you don’t."  Historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. explains:

    "….a thousand days remain of President Bush’s last term — days filled with ominous preparations for and dark rumors of a preventive war against Iran.

    The issue of preventive war as a presidential prerogative is hardly new. In February 1848 Rep. Abraham Lincoln explained his opposition to the Mexican War: "Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose — and you allow him to make war at pleasure [emphasis added]. . . . If, today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, ‘I see no probability of the British invading us’; but he will say to you, ‘Be silent; I see it, if you don’t.’ "

    This is precisely how George W. Bush sees his presidential prerogative: Be silent; I see it, if you don’t …….

    The Cuban missile crisis was not only the most dangerous moment of the Cold War. It was the most dangerous moment in all human history. Never before had two contending powers possessed between them the technical capacity to destroy the planet. Had there been exponents of preventive war in the White House, there probably would have been nuclear war. It is certain that nuclear weapons will be used again. Henry Adams, the most brilliant of American historians, wrote during our Civil War, "Some day science shall have the existence of mankind in its power, and the human race shall commit suicide by blowing up the world."

    But our Cold War presidents kept to the Kennan formula of containment plus deterrence, and we won the Cold War without escalating it into a nuclear war. Enter George W. Bush as the great exponent of preventive war. In 2003, owing to the collapse of the Democratic opposition, Bush shifted the base of American foreign policy from containment-deterrence to presidential preventive war: Be silent; I see it, if you don’t. Observers describe Bush as "messianic" in his conviction that he is fulfilling the divine purpose. But, as Lincoln observed in his second inaugural address, "The Almighty has His own purposes."

    There stretch ahead for Bush a thousand days of his own. He might use them to start the third Bush war: the Afghan war (justified), the Iraq war (based on fantasy, deception and self-deception), the Iran war (also fantasy, deception and self-deception). There is no more dangerous thing for a democracy than a foreign policy based on presidential preventive war.

    Maybe President Bush, who seems a humane man, might be moved by daily sorrows of death and destruction to forgo solo preventive war and return to cooperation with other countries in the interest of collective security. Abraham Lincoln would rejoice."

    Professor Brian Leiter has more on the same subject at Leiter Reports.

  • April 18th this year was the hundredth anniversary of the dreadful San Francisco earthquake of 1906. San Francisco was shaken badly in that quake of 7.8 magnitude. An estimated 3000 people died, mostly from the resulting fires. The city and the surrounding bay area sit on two  geological time bombs – the San Andreas and the Hayward faultlines. A shift of just a few meters on one side of either fault line past the other, will cause an earthquake of 7+ magnitude on the Richter Scale. Scientists predict an earthquake comparable to or even bigger than the one in 1906, within the next thirty years. San Francisco is now a much bigger city and the Bay Area population is many times larger than it was a hundred years ago. Many buildings including homes, sit atop or close to one of the two geological fault lines. So, those who live there "the Faultliners, are they worried? Well, not all of them. Others are looking for buyers. If any of the readers here are "faultliners", we would love to hear from you.

    (click to see faultlines) Faultlines

    "They love it. They dread it. They think it’s cool. They poke fun at it. They dream about it. They measure it with marking pens. They rely on pets to warn them before it moves. They throw insurance policies at it so they can sleep at night. They proudly show it off to visitors.  Then they try to pretend it isn’t there.

    They are the Faultliners, living and working atop the Bay Area’s twin time bombs. One hundred years after the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, the thousands who straddle "the San Andreas" and "the Hayward" ponder their precarious intimacy with forces pulling their worlds apart.

    "Those cracks show me I’m not the boss," said Elke DeMuynck, who has been patching her Hayward ceiling for 15 years. "But living on the fault also teaches you not to be afraid of every next moment, because you really can’t live if you do."

    Occasional angst

    With scientists forecasting a 62 percent likelihood of a damaging earthquake — defined as a magnitude 6.7 or greater — in the Bay Area before 2032, the decision to hang out on a fault is a deadly serious matter. But it is by no means a simple one.

    For many residents, life on the fault line is a natural sitcom, rich in irony and dark humor. There is occasional angst aboveground, as the brutes below line up for their next cataclysmic casting call. Yet within the cracking eggshells of workplace and bedroom, both hope and denial spring eternal. Still, the fault zone is always there, grinding away in the back of their heads."

  • Penny Do you come home, empty your pocketful of change into a jar and forget about it?  Or do you take the trouble to occasionally carry some of those coins in your purse and count out the exact change for your purchases? Or at least, do you once or twice a year, take that full jar to a coin machine to convert the metal money into paper?   It would better be one of the latter two.  The tendency of most folks to hoard their coins drives up the cost of minting them. The copper penny which has little copper now and is mostly zinc, is becoming especially expensive to make due to rising metal prices. It already costs the US mints more than a cent to make a penny – nearly half as much more. We could do away with the penny as many countries do with the smallest of their currency denomination when it ceases to have any significant buying power. But that is difficult to do in the US. A retail sales gimmick which fools no one, has businesses pricing their items at $4.99 instead of $5 or $9.99 instead of $10. Tack on to it a sales tax which has a decimal component and you end up with a final figure that requires businesses to make change requiring pennies when the customer tenders an amount of $10 or $20. So businesses must have a ready supply of pennies and Uncle Sam must go on making them at a loss ! Please do your bit for the national treasury – fill up your pocket with change when you go out to the store and put those coins back into circulation.

    "What happens if a penny is worth more than one cent? That is an issue the U.S. Mint could soon face if the price of metals keeps rising. Already it costs the mint well more than a cent to make a penny.

    This week the cost of the metals in a penny rose above 0.8 cents, more than twice the value of last fall. Because the government spends at least another six-tenths of a cent — above and beyond the cost of the metal — to make each penny, it will lose nearly half a cent on each new one it mints.

    Appearances aside, pennies no longer contain much copper. In the middle of 1982, after copper prices rose to record levels, the mint started making pennies that consist mostly of zinc, with just a thin copper coating.

    But these days, zinc is newly popular. Rising industrial demand and speculation have sent the price rocketing. Since the end of 2003, zinc prices have tripled. Gold, by contrast, is up only about 50 percent.Asked if the mint had a backup plan for what it will do if zinc prices rise far enough that it could pay to melt down pennies, a spokesman said that such issues were for Congress to decide. Perhaps the mint could go back to making steel pennies, as it did during World War II when copper was needed for the war effort.

    Pennies, meanwhile, are in high demand. Last year, the mint made 7.7 billion — more than all other coins. In the first three months of this year, the pace of penny production rose to an annual rate of 9 billion — the highest since 2001.

    Why so many? Perhaps there is now some hoarding in expectation that metal prices will keep rising, but mostly it is an issue of sales taxes. In most states, sales taxes are added to the retail price and assure that the total price of many items will require pennies to be given in change if a customer pays with dollar bills. That helps explain why the idea of eliminating the penny has gone nowhere.

    So retailers demand pennies from their banks, the banks demand them from the Federal Reserve, and the Fed orders them from the mint. Many of the people who get the pennies in change throw them into a jar, where they may sit for years, requiring the mint to make more and more of them.

    And, at these prices, lose money on every one."

  • Matt at Cerulean Blue has emerged from a bout of hibernation to report an account of a conversation between George W. Bush and Socrates.

  • George W. Bush came into power by declaring that he is a "uniter" not a "divider" and then promptly proceeded to divide not just this country but the whole world by his hostile and arrogant stance. Very soon we found out to our dismay that he is not much of a "doer" and he proved us right by repeatedly remarking that the presidency is "hard work."  Bush assured us that he would punish anyone who leaked classified information and we discovered that he himself was the "leaker" in chief.  Yesterday he came to the defense of his failed Secretary of Defense and bellowed agitatedly from the Rose Garden that we and the generals should stop picking on Rumsfeld because the president alone is the "decider." Today there is lot of activity in the White House as Bush acts as a "mover" and "shaker."  But I am not impressed. I am waiting for the day when he will be a "goner."  Hopefully, if we are lucky, it will be "sooner" rather than "later". 

  • On how many fronts can a government fail and still retain its legitimacy?  The Bush administration is surely as bad as a Banana Republic … but with nukes, which makes it far more dangerous than a bunch of garden variety inept buffoons.  Its reverse Midas touch has been evident again and again at home and abroad. While the foot soldiers of the GOP brigade are running like frightened rabbits from Bush and the Iraq war, the swagger of its leading men remains undiminished.

    The news we hear is all about Iraq – the most glaring of the Bush administration’s lies and most disastrous of its follies.  We know now what Bush-Cheney-Rummy have wreaked there.  But what about Afghanistan?  The other war?  Against the real enemy – the Taliban and Al Qaida?  The half hearted attempt on that front was the result of Bush’s obsession with Saddam Hussain who had nothing to do with the attack on the US on 9/11. It was very much akin to kicking the dog when you can’t talk back to your spouse or your boss. The real war on global terrorism (originating in Afghanistan and Pakistan) was cynically conflated with Iraq and Saddam Hussain and used to fool the US public (at least half of them – some of us never bought into it).  Consequently, our fight against terrorism has been a sham and a failure. The unnecessary expenditure of Iraqi and American lives has been the high price we have paid to unseat an aging and mostly impotent dictator and to fulfill the oil soaked fantasies of global domination of cowardly neo-cons. Huge resources have been poured down the drain and the coffers of Halliburton and other friends of Bush-Cheney Inc.

    While all eyes remain on the tragic fiasco in Iraq, Americans rarely take the time to reflect on the original reason to go to war – to catch, punish and neutralize the organizations which were responsible for the attack on September 11, 2001. We have not caught Osama and the Taliban monsters are up to their old ways. They now recruit young men in the border towns of Pakistan, some train in Iraq in more sophisticated warfare and the Talibs are now flexing muscles in southern Afghanistan. Poppies grow with abandon in the countryside and heroin trafficking is a booming Afghan business. Several suicide bombings and ambushes are reported to have taken place in recent months against the US and Afghan army. Education of Afghan girls faces renewed jeopardy. And President Hamid Karzai is effectively the mayor of downtown Kabul. How much longer before things go back to "normal" in this poor, brutalized and war torn nation?

    Sorry about peppering a single post with so many colorful links.  I wanted to update readers about Afghanistan so that we remember to dismiss the false claims made by the Bush  administration whenever it utters the now hollow words, "fight against terrorism". The Bush regime is so mired in hypocrisy, atrocious lies and failures that it no longer qualifies as a target of political or literary satire; all it deserves is plain old ridicule.

  • Old soldiers and cowboys we are told,  fade away or ride into the sunset.  But politicians?  Especially those who have grabbed power late in life and are arrogant to boot? They cling to their positions like barnacles on a ship.  Recently, some retired soldiers – generals to be exact,  instead of fading away, have come out swinging against their ex-boss, Herr Rumsfeld.  All contend that the non-combatant Rummy has no idea what a war or a battlefield looks like and his plans for the Iraq war and occupation were flawed from the beginning and continue to be so today.  There are now six former US generals who have joined the chorus asking for Donald Rumsfeld to step down. (I wish they would also call for an end to this mindless war.)  Here is a sampling of what they have said, among other things:

    • "We went to war with a flawed plan that didn’t account for the hard work to build the peace after we took down the regime. We also served under a secretary of defense who didn’t understand leadership, who was abusive, who was arrogant, who didn’t build a strong team." – Retired Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste.
    • "They only need the military advice when it satisfies their agenda. I think that’s a mistake, and that’s why I think he should resign." – Retired Army Maj. Gen. John Riggs.
    • "My sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions – or bury the results." – Retired Marine Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold.
    • "We grow up in a culture where accountability, learning to accept responsibility, admitting mistakes and learning from them was critical to us. When we don’t see that happening it worries us. Poor military judgment has been used throughout this mission." – Retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, former chief of U.S. Central Command.
    • "I really believe that we need a new secretary of defense because Secretary Rumsfeld carries way too much baggage with him. … I think we need senior military leaders who understand the principles of war and apply them ruthlessly, and when the time comes, they need to call it like it is." – Retired Army Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack.
    • "He has shown himself incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically, and is far more than anyone responsible for what has happened to our important mission in Iraq. … Mr. Rumsfeld must step down." – Retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton.

    Three of the above who are calling for Rumsfeld’s resignation have commanded US troops in Iraq under his leadership.  In their unusually harsh choice of words, the generals have not only called their boss incompetent and clueless but also arrogant and abusive. Not a good thing to put on anyone’s  epitaph.  But is there any sign that Rumsfeld will resign out of shame or that  Bush will fire him? No way. Whenever George W. Bush is criticized or questioned about his Iraq policy, he tells us that he listens "to the fighting men and women".  Well now that half a dozen experienced fighting men have loudly and clearly given their vote of no confidence to Rumsfeld, this is what Bush had to say today about his Secretary of Defense:

    President Bush said Friday that embattled Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has his "full support and deepest appreciation."

    "Earlier today I spoke with Don Rumsfeld about ongoing military operations in the Global War on Terror," Bush said in a written statement released by the White House. "I reiterated my strong support for his leadership during this historic and challenging time for our Nation."

    Astounding as it may seem, it is not so hard to figure out. We have known or at least suspected who really pulls the strings behind our incompetent puppet president and Commander in Chief. There is no way Uncle Cheney will allow Boy George to fire his own ex-boss (Cheney served under Rumsfeld in the Nixon administration).  So no matter what the generals’ warnings are, these two non warriors – greedy old men with sick hearts and minds will continue to tenaciously hold on to their ill begotten seats of power. In the meanwhile, young men and women will keep losing their lives, limbs and minds, doing their bidding in a useless and bloody attempt to shape the world according to the twisted philosophy of Rummy and Cheney. Support our troops?  Not this bunch!

  • Brain_scan  A little more than a week ago I posted an article here about a book by John Carey – "What Good Are Arts?" in which the author questions the value/ futility of defining "art".  Carey surmises that the definition of good or bad art is best left to the consumer until there is a scientific yardstick to measure what indeed constitutes an artistic experience. ( The blog post generated a lively discussion between me and a reader.) 

    Here is a follow up to the previous post explaining the "scientific basis" of art.  Researcher and neuroscientist, V.S. Ramachandran of the University of California, San Diego declares that while 90% of art is culture driven (put that in the category of "art history /appreciation), 10% is universal human reaction rooted in the brain. Ramachandran discussed the biological rationale of art on BBC’s Reith Lectures series on The Emerging Mind.  If you have the time and the inclination, read about his views on The Artful Brain here.

    ".. I’d like to take up one of the most ancient questions in philosophy, psychology and anthropology, namely what is art? When Picasso said: "Art is the lie that reveals the truth" what exactly did he mean? In particular what I’d like to do is raise the question: "Are there such things as artistic universals?"

    When I speak of artistic universals I am not denying the enormous role played by culture. Obviously culture plays a tremendous role, otherwise you wouldn’t have different artistic styles – but it doesn’t follow that art is completely idiosyncratic and arbitrary either or that there are no universal laws.
    Let me put it somewhat differently. Let’s assume that 90% of the variance you see in art is driven by cultural diversity or – more cynically – by just the auctioneer’s hammer, and only 10% by universal laws that are common to all brains. The culturally driven 90% is what most people already study – it’s called art history. As a scientist what I am interested in is the 10% that is universal – not in the endless variations imposed by cultures. The advantage that I and other scientists have today is that unlike we can now test our conjectures by directly studying the brain empirically. There’s even a new name for this discipline. My colleague Semir Zeki calls it Neuro-aesthetics – just to annoy the philosophers."