Thursday, January 31, 2008

The myth of free trade

So Mexico can't subsidize its corn growers because that would be "unfree trade", but the U.S. can subsidize its corn growers because, well, because. It's called kicking the ladder out from under the developing world, and is all part of a plan created by the leading economic powers to make sure they have no competition from those pesky outsiders...

In short, "free trade" isn't. All it has accomplished, anywhere, is impoverishment and despair. In this case, at least, Pat Buchanan is right. Dunno whether he's getting smarter, or just being, like a stopped clock, right twice a day. Hmm, he endorsed GWB for President in 2004, so I guess he isn't getting any smarter...

-- Badtux the non-neoliberal Penguin

Hat tip to PolitickyBitch

The difference between Hillary and Obama supporters

The Blogtopus has the scoop: People who will allow irrational hatred guide their actions should look in the mirror when they're trying to figure out what's wrong with this country... regardless of who they support.

-- Badtux the Mirror-lovin' Penguin

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Thought for the day

A stopped clock would be more correct than what passes for "common wisdom" amongst the Washington political establishment. The stopped clock is correct twice a day. The Washington political establishment... never.

-- Badtux the Snarky Penguin

The penguin's pick for President

Sadly, with Edwards falling by the wayside, there is really only one choice left. The Republicans are all batshit crazy, with John McCain wanting to bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Eyyyye-raaaaan, Multiple Choice Mitt going around with that robo-candidate gleam in his eyes as if he's trying to count how much money he could loot from the treasury if he gets in (or how much fudge he could pack), and the rest... fugheddabout it. On the Democratic side, you got the dude who makes good speech but whose health plan does not cover all Americans, and the gal whose health plan covers all Americans but only at the expense of giving pork to every special interest business group under the sun.

So I'm going with the only remaining candidate offering a universal health plan. Because that's important to me -- I ain't gettin' younger, and pretty soon it will be pretty much impossible for me to buy health insurance on the open market. So, with reluctance and more than a bit of sadness, I hereby endorse Hillary Clinton for President of the United States. For what that's worth. About three herring's worth, I calculate.

-- Badtux the Health Care Penguin

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Florida Republican primary

A Republican won it. Which one is a matter of supreme disinterest to me, since they're all batshit crazy.

-- Badtux the Disinterested Penguin

Just another reminder...

I still love my Macbook. I bought it the 3rd week of June, which makes it 7 months old now. It's starting to get a bit less shiny due to wear and tear (except for the trackpad, which is getting shinier thanks to the constant rubbing of my fingers), but it is just such a sweet little computer, and so portable... and hooked up to a big monitor and an external keyboard with the bluetooth Mighty Mouse, it's like a funny lozenge-shaped desktop computer insofar as use goes. And it all just *works*, you don't have to do any kinda funny bidness, just plug in the monitor, the screen flickers and then all your stuff moves over to the big screen...

- Badtux the Still-impressed Penguin

Non-Santa-Rosa Macbook and 4GB of RAM

Just found out that the older Macbook like mine (6 months old!) won't see all of 4GB of RAM (it'll only see 3GB), but you can still put the two 2GB sticks in there. Cool! And then when I upgrade to a Macbook that *will* see 4GB of RAM, all I have to do is swap the sticks into the new Macbook...

Why I'm maxing out my 2GB of RAM -- I'm running Red Hat Enterprise 5 inside a Parallels virtual machine to do development work. This way I can carry my work everywhere with me. Whether this is an advantage or disadvantage depends upon your viewpoint, but given that I have some hard deadlines coming up within the next 5 weeks and then a performance review after that (gulp!), I'll take any advantage I can get...

- Badtux the Busy Penguin

Dear Leader's speech

I didn't listen to it. I suspect I didn't miss anything.

-- Badtux the Time-saving Penguin

Thinking about a new guitar

Or maybe a good used one. My old plywood Yamaha is just plain worn out, the frets are pretty much done for, and it's not worth fixing (re-fretting would cost more than the thing cost new -- you can get the same guitar for under $150 when music stores are having a sale).

Was in the music store the other day playing with a midrange Ovation (not one of the low-end plywood models). Sounded sweet. I dunno, though. That was sorta the "in" thing 15 years ago when I first thought about getting a "good" guitar, but of course that was before they outsourced manufacturing to China.

Oh, my criteria -- a decent sounding electric-acoustic steel string for a decent price. You don't have to spend four digit sums of money to get a good sounding guitar and I won't. That's pretty much it, I'm wide open right now to anything...

Monday, January 28, 2008

Steve Earle : Fort Worth Blues

A tribute to his friend Townes, on Austin City Limits. Notice how it affects Nanci Griffith (the woman to his right). Nanci had just sang a very sad version of Tecumseh Valley, one of the saddest Townes songs you'll ever hear and he wrote a lot of sad songs...

The American Civil War was about state's rights

Which is why Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution of the Confederate States of America prohibits states from barring or abolishing slavery.

So I guess the American Civil War was about states' rights, as long as said state supported slavery. If a Confederate state wished to abolish slavery, though... nope, nada, zilch. States didn't have any rights then.

In other words, it is written in the Confederate Constitution that the institution of slavery is more important than state's rights. So the American Civil War wasn't about slavery? Pull the other flipper, dude!

-- Badtux the Snarky Penguin

MRE Menu 8: Hamburger patty

Well, after Menu 12 (the icky veggy burger), this was a nice change. The hamburger patty was served with barbecue beans (the barbecue sauce was a separate tube) as the main side, and two "bread" loafs to eat with it. There was nothing particularly exciting about any of this, but I can imagine that some hungry GI on maneuvers isn't going to care that it's a little on the bland side. To eat, take bite of patty, bite of beans, bite of bread, drink of the orangeade mix (packet comes with the MRE, I mix with double the recommended amount of water and it's still a bit on the over-sweet side), repeat until done.

To summarize: Edible and goes down easy. Nothing special, but not something to trade away either.

-- Badtux the Food Penguin

Crock pot recipes

I brought one home, a 2 quart one that's just penguin sized. Now I need recipes. Any suggestions? Please, no herring. Penguins eat their herring raw and whole. I must admit, however, a liking for chicken... seems somewhat like fratricide, but what can I say?

-- Badtux the Hungry Penguin

What's a "Super Bowl"?

Is that a new kind of toilet bowl?

In other news, I recently heard that there are a bunch of fat men actually being paid to run around in tights, grunt, scratch their crotches, and play children's games. Imagine that. I mean, c'mon. Who other than these fat people's relatives and friends are gonna want to watch a buncha fat men play children's games?!

-- Badtux the Snarky Penguin
(who is *not* retrieving his television out of the closet to see what this "Super Bowl" thing is... his iceberg is already well equipped toilet-wise, thank you!)

Sunday, January 27, 2008

Ah, Zyrtec!

It's about time it got released over the counter here in the USA. It's been over-the-counter in Canada for over five years now. I got a 30 day supply in Canada when I was up there three years ago, found that it didn't handle my allergies any better than Claritin did, so never bothered getting a prescription here in the 'States. Anyhow, Wally World had it today so I bought a bottle, because while it doesn't handle my allergies better than Claritin, it has one big advantage -- it lasts a full 24 hours, while Claritin lasts me about 16 hours, a rather awkward period to handle for medication purposes.

Oh, Part IV of the Civil War series is underway. Patience. The Palestinian Civil War has been underway now for 70 years. Solving it overnight is asking a lot of a penguin :-).

-- Badtux the Clearer-breathin' Penguin

Party of Racism

Over at RedState (right-wing central), a moron by the name of Erick posted that the Democrats are a hotbed of racism.

Err, right... the party running the black man for President (who is their top candidate for office, i.e., not a token) is the party of racism... gah! The stupid! It burns, it burns!

-- Badtux the not-stupid Penguin

Saturday, January 26, 2008

How to end the violence of a civil war, Part III

Okay, so now let's look at prior civil wars -- the U.S. Civil War, the South African Civil War, and others -- and see how to end them.

First possibility is the military solution. This was mentioned by BBC earlier. The only military solution that works is Stalin's solution: "No people, no problem." This was the solution used in 1948 with a mass expulsion of 90% of Israel's non-Jewish population as a deliberate policy (see: New Historians). The application of that principle to the West Bank and Gaza Strip requires the mass deportation of the population of the Gaza Strip and West Bank to... where? That is indeed the problem, since these populations lack passports allowing them into any existing country. We all know what happened when Hitler ran into the same problem dealing with his Jewish population (no country willing to accept them), and what his "Final Solution" was to that problem. Let's hope that Israel does not adopt this same "Final Solution" to their Palestinian problem, but it would solve the problem, at least insofar as the West Bank and Gaza Strip are concerned.

What about other military solutions? Nope, won't work, because remember our fundamental principles of ending the violence of a civil war:

  1. People become violent when they feel powerless, and being subjected to military force that they have no control over makes them feel powerless.
  2. Collective punishment doesn't work (Israel has 30 years of futility proving this point, yet still keeps doing something they know doesn't work, just because, I guess).
Now, the question of Israeli military action against Palestinians is addressed above. But what about the inverse question of Palestinians or surrounding Arab nations using military action against Israel. Will that work to end the violence? Once again, the only military solution that works is "No people, no problem", and justifiably the residents of the world's largest concentration camp for unwanted Jews are not particularly interested in experiencing that "Final Solution" again.

In short, genocide is the only military solution that will work for either the Palestinians or the Israeli government, a situation which has led to a stalemate of violence for the past 25 years as neither side in this new outbreak of civil war (that dates fundamentally to 1968 when Israel conquered the West Bank and Gaza Strip) is able (for the Palestinians) or willing (for the Israelis) to commit genocide. Various random attempts to break the stalemate via political action are typically swiftly derailed by subsequent military action re-establishing the stalemate in some slightly different configuration that makes no significant difference in the low hum of violence that keeps going on, and this will continue to be the outcome as long as the delusion that violence will end violence in a civil war continues to be the prevalent view.

Okay, so we know now how not to solve the violence of the Palestinian-Jewish Civil War. Military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip did not work, just as it did not work in the South in the aftermath of the active military campaigns of the American Civil War. Collective punishment did not work, just as it did not work for the Reconstruction government of the South in the Civil War. So now we can turn to what would work... see: the next segment of How to end the Violence of a Civil War.

-- Badtux the History Penguin

How long would a horror film be if the girls had guns?

Not long, apparently :-).

Friday, January 25, 2008

Ending the violence of a Civil War, Part II

At this point I will take an aside. I referred to the Palestinian-Israeli Civil War in my previous post. Before we go on to applying the principles of how to end the violence of a civil war to this particular conflict, a significant chunk of history is necessary.

Note: For the sake of convenience, I use these terms in the following manner:

Jewish: Those who follow the Jewish faith.
Palestinian: Those peoples currently or formerly residing in Palestine who practice a religion other than Judaism. (Note that this is a religious differentiation, since there is no genetic or racial difference between the two populations, due to the fact that most of the Palestinians are descendants of Jews who converted to Islam).
Palestine: The area comprising modern Israel plus the Gaza Strip plus the West Bank.
Palestinian Civil War: The conflict between Jewish and Palestinian inhabitants of Palestine.

Please disregard any other definitions of the above terms that you may have in mind.

Anyhow: During the period of Ottoman rule, the Jewish population of Palestine gradually declined until, around 1890, Jews consisted of approximately 6% of the population of Palestine. Now, this was not because of Muslim violence against Jews. The Muslim world, during the period from the Ottoman conquests to the British mandate of Palestine, was generally a peaceable place for the world's Jews. When Spain expelled their Jews, they migrated to the Muslim world and became known as the "Sephardim", for example. It was more a combination of a number of things. First, while Islamic law did not encourage or condone violence against Jews (indeed, they were explicitly tolerated as "people of the book" by Islamic law), Jews were heavily taxed, not allowed to participate in the government, and encouraged to convert to Islam. The majority of the Jewish population of Palestine converted first to Christianity, then after the Islamic conquest, to Islam by 1000AD. Secondly, the Crusaders slaughtered most of the remaining Jews in Palestine when they conquered it in 1096. The net result was that the Jewish population of Palestine fell significantly during the period 600AD to 1900AD.

Or did it? Here is the salient point: Because of conversions from Judaism to Islam, *MOST OF THE ISLAMIC POPULATION OF PALESTINE WAS GENETICALLY IDENTICAL TO THE JEWISH POPULATION*. That is, most of the Islamic population of Palestine was, in fact, converted Jews. At that point (roughly 1900), the trend of a declining Jewish population reversed significantly, due to two factors -- increased pogroms against Jews in Russia due to the instability that eventually led to the overthrow of the Tsars causing large numbers of Jews to flee, and the Zionist movement, which encouraged Jews to move back to Palestine. It was a perfect storm where these two things happened at the same time to funnel many of those Russian and Polish Jews to Palestine (Poland was largely ruled by Russia at the time and also suffered pogroms). By 1920, when the British took over from the Ottomans, the Jewish population of Palestine was probably up to around 15-20% of the population. During the runup to WWII in the 1930's, another 600,000 or so Jews managed to slip past the blockades and make it to Palestine, raising the percentage of Jews to probably around 35% of the population.

This caused frictions, because most of the land in the Ottoman Empire mandate of Transjordan was owned by absentee landlords in Istanbul. The Jewish settlers coming in from Europe were wealthier and could buy land from the absentee landlords and evict families that had been living on a particular plot of land for generations. This ran afoul of a major cultural and legal difference between European culture and Middle Eastern culture. The incoming Jewish settlers saw no problem with this because in European culture land leases are short-term affairs that are negotiable on a year-by-year basis, while the existing Palestinian inhabitants saw it as a breach of the traditional Middle Eastern landlord-tenant contract, where a landlord was supposed to stay in his proper place (i.e. far away) and a lease was actual property that could be passed on to their children and their children's children etc. This was all a relic of the feudal system that the Ottomans had imposed when they conquered Palestine from the Mamluks of Egypt.

The end result was civil war between the Jewish and Palestinian segments of the population -- who, remember, are genetically identical. There apparently was no attempt by either side to understand the cultural differences causing the conflict or to negotiate a reasonable settlement of the issue (such as, perhaps, buying out tenant rights for a sum of money in exchange for the Palestinians going away). Palestinians evicted from their land migrated to the towns and cities and hung out on the street corners where they engaged in acts of violence against Jews who happened to pass by (and against others too, most likely, but Jews decidedly felt their sting). Jews organized militias and concentrated in their own fortified villages and went on their own hunting expeditions to push Palestinians off the land in areas where they intended to buy land and set up their own villages and farms. By this time the British, who'd taken over the area after the Ottoman Empire disintegrated, were decidedly put out by all this uncouth violence and slammed the door on Jewish immigration to their Palestinian Mandate in hopes of preventing further violence. It did not work, of course. Jewish immigrants continued to filter in, if more slowly, Palestinians evicted from lands their families had worked for generations continued to take out their frustrations on the Jewish settlers who replaced them on those lands, and so it goes until complete and total civil war broke out in 1947-1948.

Yes, I call it civil war, because just as the North and South had major cultural differences that caused frictions between them that ended up with the two regions of the United States fighting a bloody civil war, so, too, did the Palestinian and Jewish inhabitants of the Palestinian Mandate have major cultural differences that led to civil war. The European values of the incoming Jewish settlers and the Middle Eastern values of the existing Palestinian inhabitants were as starkly different as the values of a Confederate slave-owner and a Northern factory owner. This caused friction, then hatred between the two factions and, eventually, war. The structure of the war was starkly different because Palestine is a tiny geographic area and both populations were intermingled in the same area, plus various outside powers invaded hoping to scoop up portions of Palestine while its occupants were busy with civil war, but civil war it was -- remember, by this time probably half the Jewish population in Palestine had been born there and many of the remainder had been there for 20 years or more (with the exception of the European concentration camp survivors who arrived in 1947-1948 after Britain was shamed by U.S. publication of British concentration camps for Jews into letting the Jews they'd imprisoned proceed to Palestine), so it was no longer a question of outsiders vs. the locals. They were *all* locals by that time.

And, as we all know, one side -- the Jewish side -- won this civil war. But the aftermath of this civil war unfolded in a much different manner from the American Civil War, probably unsurprising given the different motivations, limited geographic area, larger cultural differences between the two sides, and given the fact there was not a third people (blacks) to use as a convenient proxy for the hatred of each side for the other...

So now we go on to Part III of the series, "Ending the violence of a Civil War", where we look at the current state of the Palestinian Civil War and apply our basic principles of "how to end a civil war" to suggest what has to be done to end it.

-- Badtux the History Penguin

How to end a civil war: Part 1

In the period 1861 through 1865, two regions of the United States fought a very bloody civil war. The two regions that fought each had a very distinct culture and different dominant religions, and deep and seemingly irreconcilable differences. Then came the military defeat of one region -- the South -- in 1865, after Sherman's army ripped the guts out of the Southern economy and rendered the South incapable of feeding its armies, at which point its armies disintegrated.

And thus the war was over. Or was it? Abraham Lincoln certainly was concerned that it wasn't, as was General U.S. Grant and General W.T. Sherman, both of whom took steps to reduce the possibility of continued guerrilla warfare. Unfortunately, Lincoln got assassinated and his Vice President, a genial plantation owner from Tennessee, was incapable of dealing with the virulent hatred of Northerners who wished to collectively punish the South for their treason of rebelling against the central government.

So they did. They put President Jefferson Davis of the South into jail as a traitor. They considered bringing up various Southern generals up on charges of treason (at which point they would be hanged). They imposed military rule on the South and stripped the South of all representation in Congress. Despite the fact that General Sherman had destroyed a year's crops for the South and thus they had no food, there was no attempt to feed the hungry Southerners who were literally starving in their fields.

The results: If you go to any town or city in the South today that existed in 1865, you will find a plaque. This plaque says something along the lines of, "Here was fought the Battle of Coushatta, May 5, 1871." Or "Here was fought the Battle of Jackson Square, August 5, 1874".

Now I hear you say, "Hold it, wasn't the American Civil War over in 1865?". No. The American Civil War actually was not over until 1877, with the Hayes-Tilden Compromise that removed military occupation from the South and finished the job of pardoning the last remaining Confederate prisoners. Until then, the former Confederates fought a very effective guerrilla war -- not against Union troops (they didn't want General Sherman turned loose to burn all their farms down again, after all), but against the organs of civil government installed by those Union troops. This was a bloody, violent effort that occurred wherever the Union troops weren't. But once the former Confederates were allowed to resume their positions of power (after promising to pretend that the South was part of the United States and promising to pretend that slavery was over), that was the end of the violence. The hatred was still there -- 100 years later, when I was born, native Southerners would still spit at the mention of the name "General Sherman", talk about "damned Yankees", and whine that Abraham Lincoln was "a tyrant who illegally stole our property[slaves] from us". But the violence was over.

So, what lessons can we learn from this? I think these lessons are pretty clear:

  1. Collective punishment does not work. As long as the North imposed collective punishment against the South, there was violence against Northern interests in the South. Undoubtedly if other Northern targets had existed within firing range of the South they would have been targets of violence too.
  2. The right to vote and be represented in the national government eliminates violence. Once the South was allowed (by the Hayes-Tilden Compromise) to install its own legislators in the national government, violence stopped literally overnight, because violence would have threatened the power that the newly-elected legislators had won.
  3. This participation in the national government cannot be a token participation. The newly-elected legislators had real power in the U.S. Congress, especially in the Senate, where any Senator could filibuster and stop legislation that would adversely impact the South. If not given real power via the political process, they would have continued attempting to achieve real power via force of arms.
  4. All "war criminals", "traitors", and "terrorists" must be pardoned and allowed to participate fully in government.. It took ten years of sticking in the craw of Northerners for them to do this, but finally they realized that as long as the right to vote and the right to hold office was denied to former Confederate leaders, there would continue to be unrest in the South. This despite the fact that the former Confederate leaders were clearly traitors who had taken up arms against their lawful government under the terms of the Constitution and thus the proper response as laid out in the Constitution would have been to hang them all. But it was realized that hanging the former Confederate leadership would cause more problems, because each former Confederate leader had friends and family would would thus be even more embittered and motivated to take up arms against the federal government.
  5. Most people just want to live a normal life. This is the hardest thing for some people to understand. The average Southerner had no desire to take up arms and "kill Damnyankees". It was only while they were under military occupation, half-starved, not allowed to participate in their usual professions, living abnormal lives where they had no say in their governance, that they were willing to do this. Once the occupation was over and they could live normal lives, they just lived their lives and anybody who dared try violence against the "damnyankees" was ostracized and reported to the proper authorities, who, because of the above, were happy to hang'em from the nearest tree (because violence against the "damnyankees" threatened their own power).
  6. Blame is not useful. The first thing that happens when I go into a company to rescue a failing product is that I get everybody in a room who has done work on the product, sit back, and listen. Inevitably, they start blaming one another for the failure to produce a working product. About fifteen minutes after this starts, I lean forward, and at the first breath where I can get a word in sideways say, "You know, I'm getting bored. I don't care who's to blame. I want to know how to fix this. I need to know what we need to do to get a product out the door, and then we need to walk out of this room and do it." And then keep shutting them down every time they start pointing fingers at one another rather than telling me what we need to do to get this product out the door. The North and the South were quick to blame the other for the American Civil War. Heck, even today it's called "The War of Northern Aggression" in some parts of the South, and the "War of Southern Treason" in some parts of the North. But paying any attention to that is completely useless when trying to solve the problem of how to stitch a nation together from two seemingly hostile and irreconcilable populations.
Now, the next step is to see how this applies to the Palestinian-Israeli Civil War. What? The Palestinian-Israeli Civil War? I bet you never knew such a thing existed! Well, you'll just have to wait to see what I mean, eh?

-- Badtux the History Penguin

A sad post-script: The abandonment of the South's black population in 1877 is commonly condemned by contemporary dilettantes. Sadly, widespread racism and discrimination against black Americans is pretty much a side note to the post-Civil War history of the United States until the 1950's because discrimination against black Americans was not a Southern thing alone, but happened throughout the nation (the bastion of the KKK hate group was not the South, but... Indiana, a Northern farm state which doesn't even *have* many blacks). Ending strife and the death and killing does not, alas, somehow cure racism. All it does is give the opportunity for descendants of current racists to change their mind.