tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post5065506731712507512..comments2024-03-25T17:38:55.490-07:00Comments on Dar Kush: How Can We Repay Our Teachers?Steven Barneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13630529492355131777noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-4785266983945399602009-06-25T12:10:45.169-07:002009-06-25T12:10:45.169-07:00Al Qaeda has just publicly stated that they'll...Al Qaeda has just publicly stated that they'll use Pakistan's nuke if they manage to take control of Pakistan;<br /><br />http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-40495320090621?sp=true<br /><br />and I absolutely think they would. It would be in line with their past actions and stated goals. Increase in the number of nuclear powers = increase in the number of countries that could start a nuclear war if they are crazy enough. Again, it just takes one bad day.Mike Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13634414529649908616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-64087458230559678972009-06-25T10:34:33.041-07:002009-06-25T10:34:33.041-07:00I'll make one more point and then withdraw on ...I'll make one more point and then withdraw on this one. The era from the end of WWII has been the calmest since the invention of gunpowder, and the era following the collapse of the Soviet Union has been calmer yet. The willingness of major powers to engage in adventures has dropped dramatically (even including our recent disaster) and there have been virtually no conflicts between nuclear powers -- not even including Korea, since China wasn't one at the time. Mao's 300 million quote is new to me, but hardly surprising given the source.<br /><br />But since we got past the point where the U.S. could devastate China but not destroy it, since we got to the point where the U.S. could make the entire country and everything in it uninhabitable, when we got to the point where China's ~150 nukes could turn the U.S. into a third world nation with one surreptitious strike ... things have been calmer, haven't they?<br /><br />India and Pakistan fought wars in 1947 and 1965 and 1971. But they've fought none since, and it's not American hegemony that's stopped them: it was Pakistan's nuclear weapons program, begun in 1972 in response to India's nuclear weapons program, begun in response to China's kicking India's butt in a border dispute in 1962.<br /><br />Since the three countries became nuclear powers, China, India, and Pakistan have had no armed conflicts (albeit having come close to it a couple times.)<br /><br />This is practically a laboratory example of how nuclear deterrence has worked, and U.S. hegemony had zip to do with any of it.Daniel Keys Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12992599044462413412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-88373403273460305812009-06-25T09:57:18.700-07:002009-06-25T09:57:18.700-07:00>t started in 1950 when the U.S. had no ICBMs c...>t started in 1950 when the U.S. had no ICBMs capable of reaching China, .. . the real risks to both the U.S. and China were minimal.<<br /><br />ICBM's didn't exist in 1950 in any workable form. A-bombs were delivered by airplanes then, and US bases in Japan and the Philippines meant that it would have been realivly easy to nuke every major Chinese city pretty much from the first day they attacked US troops to day of the armistice. And indeed, some in the US military did want to use the nuclear option. Truman wouldn't go for it, thanks be, and this was a major factor in the formation of the nuclear taboo. Didn't have to go that way though. If their enemies had decided to act differently it could have been an existasential mistake on China's part. Mao was willing to take that risk because as he said, "If you kill 300 million Chinese, there will still be 300 million Chinese." Dude was seriously indifferent to the loss of the lives of his subjects, as his reign showed.<br /><br />And I'm not disagreeing with your broad point that nuclear weapons have been a force for peace, by and large. I just don't think they are the only reason for this being the most peaceful period in human history and that US hegemony is also playing a large role. As an example, Japan by any standards is a great power and by traditional rules should want nuclear weapons to defend herself in case rising China gets any ideas. But Japan feels secure under America's hegemony, and doesn't feel the need to increase her military might with nuclear weapons. If she did, her neighbors would get very worried and tensions in Asia would increase, and so would the risk of conflict. The stronger the American hegemony is, the more that advanced countries will feel secure under its protection and won't feel the need for nuclear weapons themselves. And the fewer nuclear powers there are, means a lower chance of a Very Bad Day happening.Mike Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13634414529649908616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-228456272357363702009-06-24T23:09:31.494-07:002009-06-24T23:09:31.494-07:00>In 2003, 16% of people had no health care. <...>In 2003, 16% of people had no health care. <<br /><br />Incorrect. There is a difference between having no health care insurance and having no health care. Having no health care which would be if people went into a hospital bleeding and were turned away.Mike Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13634414529649908616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-68593095106212092062009-06-24T22:13:30.579-07:002009-06-24T22:13:30.579-07:00And Santiago--
great seeing you, too!And Santiago--<br />great seeing you, too!Steven Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13630529492355131777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-23352267531756117222009-06-24T22:12:56.738-07:002009-06-24T22:12:56.738-07:00Mike--you say 89% of people are satisfied with the...Mike--you say 89% of people are satisfied with the health care they receive. In 2003, 16% of people had no health care. That tells me right there that the numbers need to be examined more closely--there's more to the story.Steven Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13630529492355131777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-45508348574333440882009-06-24T19:27:24.665-07:002009-06-24T19:27:24.665-07:00OK, I'll give you that. I'm speaking slopp...OK, I'll give you that. I'm speaking sloppily, but I stand by the argument in broad. To be more precise, since it became possible for one country to utterly destroy another with nuclear weapons, and directly due to that, global conflict, particularly among superpowers possessing such weapons, has declined to near-zero.<br /><br />The forgotten war (forgotten by me, too) is much closer to being one of the regional wars involving non-nuclear powers that still go on -- it started in 1950 when the U.S. had no ICBMs capable of reaching China, and China had no nuclear weapons at all. It wasn't fought on either Chinese or American soil, and the real risks to both the U.S. and China were minimal.<br /><br />I wouldn't swear no nuclear power could go to war with another in this day and age, but it would be either 1) over VERY QUICKLY, or 2) a regional conflict not directly threatening either principal.Daniel Keys Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12992599044462413412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-9021873248856766872009-06-24T19:07:32.008-07:002009-06-24T19:07:32.008-07:00>There's been nothing similar among the maj...>There's been nothing similar among the major world powers since the end of WWII. Not even close.<<br /><br />Korean War. Chinese troops fought US troops on a battlefield and millions died. Both the US and China were major powers in 1950 (by any standard that would include many of the countries you listed).Mike Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13634414529649908616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-37249480146593369032009-06-24T18:20:45.288-07:002009-06-24T18:20:45.288-07:00As there were no major global conflicts from 1815 ...<i>As there were no major global conflicts from 1815 to 1914</i><br /><br />We may disagree on this one, unsurprisingly.<br /><br />Between the end of the Napoleonic wars and 1914:<br /><br />The US went to war with Mexico<br /><br />France, the UK, and the Ottoman Empire, now Turkey, went to war with Russia.<br /><br />Italy and France went to war with Austria.<br /><br />The U.S. had a major civil war.<br /><br />Germany, Italy, and Austria went to war. (Don't ask me who fought who, I've never got the seven weeks war straight.)<br /><br />France went to war with Germany.<br /><br />Russia and a bunch of Balkan countries went to war with Turkey.<br /><br />The U.S. went to war with Spain.<br /><br />Eight countries including the US, UK, France, Japan, invaded China.<br /><br />Japan went to war with Russia.<br /><br />There's been nothing similar among the major world powers since the end of WWII. Not even close.Daniel Keys Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12992599044462413412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-4243790366401781172009-06-24T16:34:03.111-07:002009-06-24T16:34:03.111-07:00>But the lack of major global conflicts since t...>But the lack of major global conflicts since the end of WWII is due to nuclear weapons, period.<<br /><br />As there were no major global conflicts from 1815 to 1914, I don't see why it would be that simple. A factor, certainly. Period, no.<br /><br />And of course global conflicts are not the only source of violence, and in fact are a small % of the total number of deaths caused by wars in human history. We are more peaceful now than the 1815 to 1914 period when there were no major global conflicts as well. <br /><br />>Only if you omit the spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and if you count Homeland Security separately from DOD.<<br /><br />I thought the raise from 3 to 4% of GDP counted for that, but shall check on it.Mike Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13634414529649908616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-1651562259350189352009-06-24T16:23:52.670-07:002009-06-24T16:23:52.670-07:00Sure, the ending of the Cold War made the world a ...Sure, the ending of the Cold War made the world a safer place; there were no longer two superpowers to wage proxy wars. But the lack of major global conflicts since the end of WWII is due to nuclear weapons, period.<br /><br /><i>Sorry, brain slip, meant 33% increase.</i><br /><br />Only if you omit the spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and if you count Homeland Security separately from DOD.Daniel Keys Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12992599044462413412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-55032050228067621762009-06-24T14:59:14.169-07:002009-06-24T14:59:14.169-07:00Sorry, brain slip, meant 33% increase.Sorry, brain slip, meant 33% increase.Mike Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13634414529649908616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-34697527817467880032009-06-24T14:13:49.621-07:002009-06-24T14:13:49.621-07:00>So 26% of Americans think healthcare coverage ...>So 26% of Americans think healthcare coverage in the U.S. is excellent or good, which means that 63% of your 89% are somehow both satisfied and think the system doesn't work well ...<<br /><br />It's not that uncommon for people to be satisfied with something on the personal level (how it effects them) and still think it doesn't work on the societal level (how it effects others). People _know_ how they think something effects them whereas they are only guessing or going from much more limited data on how it effects others. <br /><br />> Also, the overwhelming majority of Americans -- 79% -- say they are dissatisfied with the total cost of healthcare in this country<<br /><br />I would be shocked if there was not a majority YES to the question "Are you dissatisfied with the total cost of X in this country?" where X is practically any major social institution you can think of (education, sanitation, whatever). <br /><br />> Because of nukes.<br /><br />Nukes were around in the 1945-1991 period and the level of global violence was higher then than now. <br /><br />Also, all it takes is one bad day to turn it from the most peaceful period to the most violent period in human history. I beleive that a strong hegemonic power will help put off that day. <br /><br />> The U.S. has more than doubled its military spending since 1998.<<br /><br />Not as a % of GDP, and if as stated you are worried about the fiscal consequences, % of GDP is what matters. There it is around a 50% increase.Mike Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13634414529649908616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-45428292197451209432009-06-24T12:28:50.012-07:002009-06-24T12:28:50.012-07:00Mr. Barnes
It was Create to see you there at Guru...Mr. Barnes<br /><br />It was Create to see you there at Guru Cliff's Camp. It was indeed a magical event with some of the nicest and most dangerous human beings to ever congregate in a little place in Van Nuys CA. See you soon. <br /><br />Best wishes<br /><br />Santiago DoblesSilatyogihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18021028166744140234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-1354095298257693202009-06-24T11:05:55.290-07:002009-06-24T11:05:55.290-07:00Not only do I not believe in the end of history, b...Not only do I not believe in the end of history, but the bastard lifted a chapter title from me -- "The Mechanism of Desire" was a short I wrote many years before Fukuyama used it.Daniel Keys Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12992599044462413412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-72513439856805333742009-06-24T11:02:45.801-07:002009-06-24T11:02:45.801-07:00Mike,
Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Like 89...Mike,<br /><br />Lies, damned lies, and statistics.<br /><br /><i>Like 89% of Americans, I'm satisfied with the health care I receive.</i><br /><br /><a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/112813/americans-rate-national-personal-healthcare-differently.aspx" rel="nofollow">Here.</a><br /><br />Somehow 89% of Americans are satisfied with their healthcare, and yet 41% of Americans still want to scrap the entire system as it now exists ... which means that 30% of your 89% ... taking both from 100%, I'm not going to bother with the math to get the actual percentage of the 89%, even if it would give me a higher number to be ironic about ... 30% of the 89% are both satisfied with their health care, <i>and</i> want to scrap the entire system.<br /><br /><i>Americans' perceptions are much more negative when it comes to healthcare coverage. Only about one in four Americans currently believe healthcare coverage in the country is excellent or good.</i><br /><br />So 26% of Americans think healthcare coverage in the U.S. is excellent or good, which means that 63% of your 89% are somehow both satisfied and think the system doesn't work well ...<br /><br /><i>Also, the overwhelming majority of Americans -- 79% -- say they are dissatisfied with the total cost of healthcare in this country, a figure up slightly from the 71% found in 2001.</i><br /><br />And so on. It's a good read.<br /><br />I don't mind you quoting the 89%, but in the hunt for the truth, if you're going to quote the poll it came from, maybe you should mention that the poll said other stuff as well?<br /><br /><i>The chief benefit of having a hegemonic power is that they are often a factor for greater peace simply because they are in a position beyond challenge.</i><br /><br />I'm quite sure we could be in a position beyond challenge for less than we're now paying.<br /><br /><i>now is the most peaceful period in the history of the human race. Ever.</i><br /><br />Because of nukes.<br /><br /><i>I don't believe in the end of history. I don't believe that my people having a hegemonic position will be bad for them or that there will never come a time when power is not needed. There are certainly incidences of states spending so much on their militaries that they bankrupt themselves, the Soviet Union being the most obvious modern example but far from the only one, but not at 4% of GDP. That's, historically, a very low amount for a hegemonic power to spend.</i><br /><br />I don't believe in the end of history either. But I do believe that spending money you don't need to spend will catch up with you.<br /><br />http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending<br /><br />The U.S. has more than doubled its military spending since 1998. And we were a hegemonic power then, too.Daniel Keys Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12992599044462413412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-3703048914177602052009-06-24T10:52:59.792-07:002009-06-24T10:52:59.792-07:00I have to say that outside of Steven's insight...I have to say that outside of Steven's insight, the thing I enjoy most about this blog is the intelligent and POLITE commentary. Kudos all.coxcrowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03079185896147777022noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-12971403769160538742009-06-24T10:12:29.740-07:002009-06-24T10:12:29.740-07:00>It takes .001% of the affected group to do it,...>It takes .001% of the affected group to do it, so please don't act like I'm implying the entire system would go whacko.<<br /><br />I didn't. I said that defense spending was cut in half from 1986 to 2000, so it can be done if people want it to be done. I am not aware of any murders committed to stop or slow the decrease in the 1986 to 2000 period. US Presidents have had trouble keeping two-bit robberies and blow jobs secret, so I I have my doubts that multiple murders could have been committed by some minority with the intention of slowing the defense spending cut without it leaking out in some manner.Mike Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13634414529649908616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-28274539267011945812009-06-24T09:35:43.743-07:002009-06-24T09:35:43.743-07:00Another thing about Guru Plinck: he and his family...Another thing about Guru Plinck: he and his family are the epitome of good, Christian, salt of the earth folks. Humble, kind, hard-working, decent people. I could not have a higher respect for them, or for his skills.Steven Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13630529492355131777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-77585249334957803442009-06-24T09:34:04.243-07:002009-06-24T09:34:04.243-07:00Sapir and Murphy, the guys who created "The D...Sapir and Murphy, the guys who created "The Destroyer" were creating a delightful parody, and I must have read fifty of those things, back in the day. Chuin was a hoot. A real shame that they never found a cinematic home, or that when they tried, they had to cast Joel Grey (film) or Roddie McDowell (television) as Koreans.Steven Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13630529492355131777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-32923184231657351782009-06-24T09:31:47.629-07:002009-06-24T09:31:47.629-07:00I don't worry about a military revolt. I worr...I don't worry about a military revolt. I worry about people who stand to lose billions of dollars in defense contracts deciding to kill someone who is standing between them and money. People murder people every day over pennies. It takes just a few people with money, equipment, and access to skilled experienced killers to put a hole in a couple of selected politicians, or make their planes crash. THAT's what I worry about. Motive, means, and opportunity. It takes .001% of the affected group to do it, so please don't act like I'm implying the entire system would go whacko.Steven Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13630529492355131777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-81542358214672238942009-06-24T09:02:16.078-07:002009-06-24T09:02:16.078-07:00The problem with health care in general is that it...The problem with health care in general is that it tends to be after the fact. The government should be promoting healthy lifestyles and subsidizing fitness programs at work. Then people wouldn't get sick as much.<br /><br />People think a lot of crazy things about me but I have only spent two days in the hospital in my life and that was for appendicitis.<br /><br />And when I got out I walked a couple of miles to a friend's house with no problem.<br /><br />The one thing that the military does is keep people in shape.Christian H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16847810167041864292noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-22028265531184344882009-06-24T06:51:18.010-07:002009-06-24T06:51:18.010-07:00Marty, the hypothesis is that if patients got sign...Marty, the hypothesis is that if patients got significantly more accurate diagnosis, they wouldn't need as many appointments.Nancy Lebovitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07068537632391466902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-34827398463837564992009-06-24T06:01:32.317-07:002009-06-24T06:01:32.317-07:00Okay more thoughts on government health care. We a...Okay more thoughts on government health care. We already have a government health care program. Cost wise its one of the biggest factors driving our deficit, yet when I turn 65 and go on medicare I will need to purchase a medicare supplementary policy to cover those medical needs covered by my current employee plan but not by medicare. So clearly without purchasing this supplemental plan the government plan with its current high cost is inferior to my current coverage. Why should this not be the general case if we go to universal health care. Also lets look at Nancy's comment about physicians spending more time with their patients. There are only so many minutes in a doctor's day. If the doctor spends more time with each patient he can see fewer patients. If we expand the number of patients through universal health care where do we get the more minutes from, where do we get the more hospital beds the more xray machines etc. Undoubtedly universal health care will be better for those with no coverage, but it is virtually certain to mean worse coverage for those who have coverage, the problem is weighing the overall benefits of both and it comes down to, as I said above, the measuring rod you choose to weigh the two against each other.Marty Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06465745755940914756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9339191.post-79007118250455155062009-06-24T05:33:45.375-07:002009-06-24T05:33:45.375-07:00I can't imagine a military revolt over a cut i...I can't imagine a military revolt over a cut in the budget. I'm looking at this from the outside, but I think the US military culture is too solid for that.<br /><br />Also, I don't think the military-industrial complex needs to threaten violence. The combination of money/influence, the idea that the military and big weapons are cool, and the fear of attack are enough to get them plenty.<br /><br />I don't know if there's a good way out for the American medical system. It's amazingly corrupt and has a lot of political influence. It may have less infulence than it seems because Obama has proven he can get tremendous support from individual contributions, but I'm concerned that we'll just end up with a different flavor of mess.<br /><br />Two things that I think would help a lot with cost and quality of care: paying more for longer intake appointments, and paying for home care as easily as for institutionalization.<br /><br />Maybe I just know a lot of sick people, but getting competent diagnosis can take many years. Meanwhile, the original condition isn't being treated, may be getting worse, and the patient is at risk for side effects from the wrong treatments. It's no guarantee, but if doctors got paid for spending more than 10 or 15 minutes with their patients, it could help.<br /><br />Also, there are a lot of people who would be happier and possibly healthier if they were getting help at home, it costs a third as much as being in an institution.Nancy Lebovitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07068537632391466902noreply@blogger.com