While I have French genes and thus have a talent for cooking (fortunately I get my fighting genes from my English and Mohawk ancestors), I prefer to keep my culinary efforts to a minimum. As such, I have developed a variety of simple yet effective recipes over the years. Many of them involve, shockingly enough, the use of a microwave. Here is one of my favorites: Cheesy Broccoli and Potatoes. Oddly enough, I hated broccoli for years-until one day I discovered that enough cheddar cheese makes it good. I suspect that this is also true of slugs or even goat brains, but I won’t eat them (didn’t get those French genes).

Cheesy Broccoli & Potatoes  Surprise

Ingredients

2-3 Cups shredded cheddar cheese

4-6 Red Potatoes

1 Pound  frozen tender broccoli cuts (1 package)

Directions

• Wash 4-6 red potatoes and cut them into wedges. Place them on a microwave safe plate and cook for 5-10 minutes or until done. Set aside.
• Cook the broccoli cuts based on the package directions, typically microwaving 7-8 minutes in a covered microwave safe container. Drain.
• Place a layer of cooked potato wedges and broccoli on the bottom of a coverable, microwave safe dish. Make sure that the dish/container is large enough for all the ingredients. Place a layer of shredded cheddar cheese over the potatoes and broccoli, repeat until the container is full or all the ingredients are used. Or you get too hungry to wait.
• Cover the container/dish and microwave for 5-7 minutes or until the cheese is fully melted.

In addition to being hell, war is also expensive. The US has dumped about $1 trillion into the Afghanistan and Iraq wars already and current plans are to keep shoveling cash and lives into these pits.

Naturally, the money to pay for the wars has to come from somewhere. Like most federal spending, much of the war money has come from loans and deficit spending. It has also been proposed that there be a war tax (which has been done in the past). It is supposed to be relatively small, but is still a tax.

On the positive side, we will have to pay for the wars eventually and a good conservative would argue in favor of a pay as you go strategy. After all, why take out loans when we can save money by paying now?

On the negative side, the tax is a tax. While Democrats are cast as pro-tax people, they might well balk at a tax that supports wars. While Republicans like to present themselves as fiscal conservatives, they are also devoted to appearing to be anti-tax. Hence, they will tend to balk at a tax-even if it pays for the wars they started.

My view is that we should have never been involved in either war and throwing even more money into them can be seen as throwing good money after bad. But, of course, we are stuck in those pits and are thus obligated to get out in a way that is ethically correct and politically effective. That is, we need to resolve the conflicts and doing so would seem to involved restoring one country we broke and building a nation out of what seems to have never been much more than a loose collection of tribes.

Of course, we could help pay for the wars using the traditional methods developed by the Romans-make the conquered territories pay for their conquest and rebuilding. But, contrary to what our detractors say about us, we are not very good at being truly imperialistic and seem to have no stomach for empire. Just imagine, though, if we were as bad as they say we are…the wars would be done and paid for.

Image via Wikipedia

When it comes to professional athletes, there is considerable debate about whether they are role models or not. Some athletes explicitly deny this while others embrace being role models. In general, of course, they are happy to profit from their fame and to use their influence as role models to sell various products.

The Tiger Woods “episode” has once again raised questions about this issue. As everyone knows, he was involved in a crash and there are rumors flying that he has been having an affair. There is also speculation that his crash might have been the result of a conflict between he and his wife. Obviously, there are people devoted to raking up muck and even if the speculations are false, Woods is taking a rather severe PR hit over this incident.

Obviously, this PR hit is not desirable. But, should Woods be regarded as potentially failing as a role model by acting in this way?

On one hand a case can be made that he can be regarded as failing in his duties as a role model. After all, he has carefully crafted a public image with the aid of his corporate sponsors. This image is used to sell products and services and it rests on him maintaining this image of excellence in sports and as a person. Since he is well paid for this image, he has let down those who pay him, thus failing in his duty to them. Of course, if he was just involved in a random crash and had handled it better, then the damage would have been minor (or non-existent). However, the way the situation is being handled is allowing the suspicions to continue and even grow. Of course, this might be something beyond his control and hence it might be best to not hold him accountable for the rumor firestorm.

His fans also look up to him and admire him. While this is mostly for his skill, it is also for his carefully crafted image as a decent, like able person. As such, this incident can be seen as harming his fans and as a failure in his duty to them. After all, he benefited greatly from his positive public image and if he was willing to reap the rewards, then he must also be willing to reap the negative effects as well.

On the other hand, he can be regarded as not failing in his duties. One way to argue this is that he does not actually have any duty (beyond the basic moral duty we all have) to act in an exemplary way. After all, his job is to hit golf balls and sell products. While damage to his personal reputation might impact his image, he can still play golf (once he recovers from his injuries). As long as he continues to play well, he can still count on corporate support and commercial opportunities. Pf course, he might need to be re-branded.

Another way to argue this is that his personal life should be kept distinct from his professional life. After all, as long as his actions to not violate the rules of the sport or his commercial contracts, then what he does would not be a professional failing. As such, the fans can expect him to play golf by the rules but cannot expect him to be a role model.

A final point is that while it is tempting to hold professional athletes to high standards, the fact is that they are just people who play sports. As such, they should not be held to any higher expectations than anyone else and what they do should be kept in proper perspective.

While there seems to be  a consensus in the scientific community about global warming, there seems to be some problem with the temperature data from the 1980s. To be specific, the raw data is missing and the remaining data is modified data. The exact quote is as follows:

Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e., quality controlled and homogenized) data.

This is obviously a serious problem. After all, it is rather critical to keep raw data. After all, anyone wishing to check on the conclusions drawn from the data would need to be able to examine that data. Having only “value added” data is not adequate. After all, this “value adding” changes the original data and might do so in ways that bias the data. Of course, without the original data it cannot be determined whether the “value adding” was legitimate or whether it involved changing the data to support a specific hypothesis (rather than drawing the hypothesis from the data).

Does this prove that global warming is a hoax? Not at all. The fact that some data is missing does not disprove the hypothesis. However, it does raise serious and reasonable questions about any findings that are based on the missing data and it also provides some rather high caliber ammunition to those who are critical of the global warming view.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Climategate, The Consequences (andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com)
• Climate change emails: plot or damp squib? (telegraph.co.uk)

Image via Wikipedia

Jill Lawrence of Politics Daily has declared Michael Huckabee’s 2012 presidential campaign DBA (Dead Before Arrival). This is based on the fact that Huckabee commuted Clemmon’s prison sentence in 2000. Clemmons allegedly murdered four police officers recently and the folks in the media have been quick to note the connection between the two men.

While one incident would be bad enough, Lawrence asserts that Huckabee has a pattern of making bad choices when it comes to commuting sentences (such as the case involving Dumond). Interestingly, no mention is made of any positive results from his commuting sentences.

What makes this incident so politically damaging is the fact that a similar  sort of disaster was used to attack Michael Dukakis. Folks who have been around a while will recall that while Dukakis was governor, the convicted murder Willie Horton raped a woman while on furlough from prison. The Willie Horton club was wielded quite effectively by the Republicans to beat down Dukakis. Obviously enough, the Democrats can easily pick up the club, dust it off, spray paint “Maurice Clemmons” over “Willie Horton” and commence beating.

This sort of attack would seem to be especially effective against a Republican. After all, Democrats are generally stereotyped as being soft on crime but Republicans are supposed to be tough on crime. As such, Huckabee would seem to be fatally wounded by this situation. Or so it would seem.

In the case of Dukakis, the Republicans were able to cast him as weak and soft on criminals because of this weakness. Huckabee, however, is presented as commuting sentences primarily based on his faith and his belief in redemption. That is, he tended to commute sentences because he believed that the individual had found religion and had been redeemed.

Interestingly, while folks on the American right generally believe in being tough on crime, those with religious leanings tends to also believe greatly in the power of redemption through faith. As such, Huckabee can be presented as not being weak on crime but being a true believer in the redemptive power of faith. As such, Huckabee’s mistakes can also be presented as failings on the part of the once-redeemed. In the case of Clemmons, he did not act until nine years after his sentence was commuted. This would certainly seem to mitigate some of Huckabee’s responsibility. While it is true that if Clemmons was still in prison, then he would not have killed the officers. However, it is not clear that Huckabee is responsible for how those nine years affected Clemons.

While Huckabee’s chances in 2012 have been damaged, I think it is premature to count him out. First, he can make use of the redemption angle to deflect attacks on him based on him being soft on crime. Second, he can apply damage control to the situation now and let it lose political beating power over the next three years.

Image via Wikipedia

Tiger Woods recently made the news for a bad drive-a crash in his SUV. While such accidents are not unheard of (I once accidentally backed over a friend’s mailbox), this incident has gotten considerable news coverage for two reasons: first, it involved a celebrity. Second, there is speculation that the crash might be the sign of something more. To be specific, there is speculation that Woods is having an affair. The fact that Woods declined to talk to the police (which is his right), issued a somewhat odd apology and said that any assertions that his wife was not the first there are lies raised additional questions about exactly what was going on.

Obviously, it is reasonable to be suspicious about the situation. After all, if there had just been a simple crash, then the matter would have closed quickly without the oddities noted above.

While I am not interested in golf at all and I am not really a fan of Woods (because I’m not really the fan sort), when I learned about the odd aspects of the situation, I was vaguely concerned. After all, while Woods has clearly crafted a public image that serves him (and his bank account) well, he does seem to be a decent person. Also, he has been quite actively involved in charitable works.  As such, if there is something unfortunate going on, then this would be rather damaging to Woods as an individual and also as a role model. While I am cynical enough to know that people are quite capable of failings, I rather hope that this has not happened. After all, it would be rather bad for Woods as an individual. Further, since Woods is a role model, any serious failing on his part would have repercussions beyond his own life.

One final point to address is the question of whether the public has the right to know about what is going on in Woods’ life.

Obviously, when someone crashes his vehicle and the police are involved, then the expectation of privacy is lost-at least in terms of there being a public police report about the incident.

Of course, the coverage of Woods is going beyond that sort of “one car accident” reports that make the local news and includes the sort of speculation that was mentioned above. Obviously enough, folks are eagerly trying to pry into Woods’ life and learn what (if anything) is going on. But, do people have a right to know what (if anything) is going on?

On one hand, it could be argued that they do. After all, Woods is voluntarily a public figure and benefits greatly from his fame and from positive press. He also profits considerably from appearing in commercials-including one in which he is reading a bedtime story to his child. If he is willing to accept the public eye and invite cameras into his life when it is to his advantage, then it would seem that he must also face that eye when it is to his disadvantage.

On the other hand, it can be argued that even if Woods benefits from the public eye, this does not entail that the public has a right to know about his private life insofar as it is a private matter. To use an analogy, I make my living by appearing in public as a professor. While this means that people have a right to view my public activities in class, it does not entail that they have a right to know about what is going on in my private life. While Woods fame is vastly greater than mine (if I can even be said to possess any) and he makes a  considerable fortune from his public persona, he should be entitled to the same right to privacy.

It might be countered that Woods is a public figure in a way that someone like me is not. The analogy that might be used in this case is to a politician. They are public figures and the public has a right to know about what is going on in their lives. Likewise, Woods is a public celebrity and hence the public has a right to know.

This can be countered by pointing out two things that might break the analogy: politicians are elected and are (in theory) accountable to the people. As such, the people have a considerable right to know because it can directly impact them. However, while Woods popularity rests on the public, he is not in a position of authority and he is not accountable to the public in that manner. As such, his private life is no more the business of the public than their private lives are his business.

Reading Maziar Bahari’s article about his ordeal in Iran reminded me very much of the novel 1984 and all the other descriptions of “interrogations” I have read. Thinking about this, I began to suspect that there is a core authoritarian mindset that remains the same across a wide variety of ideologies. In the case of Maziar Bahari’s horrible ordeal in Iran, he faced this mind in the form of Mr. Rosewater-his primary tormentor. While Mr. Rosewater is an individual, he is token of a type-that of the authoritarian mind.

The first, and most obvious, quality of this mind is that it is obedient to authority. While Milgram’s famous experiment showed that most people seem to be naturally obedient, the authoritarian mind takes this obedience to a greater extreme. While the obedience does come in degrees, the truly authoritarian mind reaches a state of almost unquestioning obedience. This sort of obedience is, of course, critical to rulers everywhere-without such “dogs” (as per Animal Farm) they would lack an essential tool of their power. These “dogs” are the people who tortured Bahari, the people who ran the Nazi camps, and those folks who tortured in the name of defending freedom and democracy.

The second quality of this mind is a self-fulfilling paranoia. This sort of person sees any disagreement as the mark of an enemy, thus often forcing such people to become enemies in fact. Hobbes, of course, took this sort of view in the Leviathan when he noted that people see a failure to agree as the mark of disagreement and that people react with hostility to such things. Of course, the authoritarian mind takes this to a greater extreme than normal and tends to be willing to take violent action against those who disagree.

The third quality of this mind is a distrust and fear of the freedom of thought and expression. As such, these people tend to regard intellectuals and journalists as natural enemies. After all, people who think tend not to obey unquestionably and they often raise difficult moral concerns by failing to see the world as those in power wish it to be seen. Journalists, at least those not owned by the state, have a tendency to report unpleasant truths rather than the official “truths” of those in power.

Interestingly enough, both the hardliners in Iran and those in the United States have very similar views about the intellectuals and the media. In both countries, these folks blame the media for creating dissent, undermining the state, and encouraging immorality. The intellectuals and elites are also criticized and regarded as enemies. After all, these people are out of touch with “the people” and are not part of the true America/Iran.  Needless to say, it was interesting to learn that Mr. Rosewater’s view of the media is the same as that of Sarah Palin.

Of course, the dislike of the authoritarians for folks who think and talk is ancient. The sort of people who killed Socrates are the same sort of people who tortured Bahari.

The fourth quality is a flexible moral absolutism. In general, authoritarian folks believe that their cause or side is absolutely right. They also tend to hold to an absolute moral view of pure good and evil: the enemy is pure evil while they are pure good. This is often associate with a religion (for example, Islam in Iran and Christianity in the US).

What makes their absolutism flexible is that although they see the world in absolutes, they accept that they can do terrible things in service to their cause. For example, Mr. Rosewater worked very hard trying to paint Bahari as a morally evil man. Meanwhile, Mr. Rosewater was beating Bahari, subjecting him to mental torment and keeping him locked away for no legitimate reason. That is, Mr. Rosewater was evil and doing evil things. Likewise, in the United States people advocated using torture and imprisonment without trial and justified this by claiming that America is good and hence must be protected.

But, perhaps the authoritarians are not really flexible absolutists. Perhaps they just have two absolute principles: “my cause is right, so anything done its defense is also right” and “my enemies are wrong, so anything they do is wrong.” These two principles do seem to nicely capture the authoritarian mind.

A fifth quality of the authoritarian mind is a lack of concern about truth. In the case of Mr. Rosewater, his goal was not to find out the truth about reality (that Bahari was just a journalist and not a spy or agent). Rather, his goal was to impose a “truth” upon reality. For the authoritarian mind, “truth” is not something that one finds by objective investigation. The “truth” is provided by those above and it is “confirmed” by the use of force and torture. For example, if the authorities say that Bahari is a spy, then Mr. Rosewater would torture him to get him to say that he is a spy, thus “confirming” the “truth.” In contrast, real journalists and “intellectuals” investigate reality to see what the truth is-yet another reason why authoritarians hate intellectuals and journalists they do not control.

Authoritarians might also think that other people do what they do in this regard and this might also help explain this hostility. After all, if they think that the intellectuals and media people are trying to impose “truth” on the world, they would see these people as competitors to their “truth” and hence enemies. Perhaps the idea of objective truth is foreign to the authoritarian mind (as nicely illustrated in 1984).

Not surprisingly, authoritarians are terribly dangerous and help make small and great evils possible. Unfortunately, criticism of them generally tends to reinforce their paranoia as they see any criticism as an attack (especially if it is true). For example, criticism of Iran tends to simply make the hardliners take an ever harder line as they see more and more “evidence” that their paranoia is correct.

They also tend to be immune to reason and moral appeals-they are, after all, confident in their own moral goodness and regard reason as an attempt to create dissent.

So, then, how do we deal with such people? In some cases, they can be reached-after all, they are still human. For example, Bahari’s article reveals a great deal about Mr. Rosewater, such as the fact that he seems to truly love his wife. In some cases, these people cannot be reached and then it comes down to what they understand quite well-force.

Perhaps the best way to deal with this people is by increasing the numbers of people who are not them. While authoritarians are very dangerous because of their willingness to obey and do terrible things, they are obviously not superhuman. As such, their power can be countered by numbers of people who are willing to resist them and the evils that they defend.

As a philosophy professor, I have waged a never-ending and largely pointless battle against people using “fallacy” when they mean “factual error.” For example, someone might say “people often think that dogs won’t eat anything that is bad for them, but that is a fallacy.” This is, of course, a mistake. A fallacy is a mistake in reasoning that occurs when the premises presented in an argument fail to adequately support the conclusion.

So, to think that a dog won’t eat anything that is bad for them is not a fallacy. Rather it is just a factual error. After all, dogs will consume anti-freeze and that will kill them.

Naturally enough, people might argue that words should mean whatever people say they mean. So, of folks use “fallacy” in place of “factual error”, then that is just they way things are.

While that has some appeal, since language is mostly a matter of convention, this sort of use is problematic. After all, there is an important distinction between an error in logic and a factual error. It certainly seems important to distinguish between those two mistakes. To see why, think about balancing your checkbook. You can make a mistake by doing the math incorrectly (adding $500 + $50.50 and getting $555) and you can make a mistake by entering the wrong amount (for example, $50 instead of $500) for a check. These errors are different and calling them the same would be a mistake and would also cause confusion.

Now, if people insist that “fallacy” should mean the same as “factual error”, then a new word would be needed to name what we used to call “fallacies.” However, since we already have a perfectly good word for fallacies, namely “fallacies”, then it makes sense to simply stick with the current usage.

A minor problem with using “fallacy” for “factual error” is that it makes teaching logic a bit more challenging. To be specific, it is quite challenging to make the distinction between assessing the quality of reasoning and assessing the quality of a claim without adding to the confusion by using two terms for the same thing.

As such, it would be nice if people would stop using “fallacy” in place of “factual error.” One refers to a mistake in reasoning and the other refers to being wrong about a fact and these are not the same things.

James Cameron’s upcoming film Avatar (not to be confused with Nickelodeon’s Avatar) is already drawing a great deal of criticism. This is despite the fact that the film is not yet finished. While it is reasonable to criticize what is known about the film (it is expensive and not yet done) it is not reasonable to make judgments about the quality of the film itself until it has been finished and seen.

From what I have seen of the film, it does seem to draw heavily from existing sources. First, people are making the obvious connection to Dances With Wolves.  However, it is even more appropriate to go back before that movie and compare Avatar’s core plot device with that of the (original) Outer Limits episode Chameleon. In this episode a human is genetically modified to pass as an alien so that he might discern their purpose (and kill them if need be). He finds that the aliens are actually morally superior to humans and ends up joining them (or at least the sole survivor after he kills the others).  No doubt there are numerous other science-fiction stories with similar themes that predate even the Chameleon episode.

Of course, it is rather difficult to create a movie that does not draw from some pre-existing source. Interestingly, some movies are actually lauded for doing so. A good example of this is Star Wars (the original movies) which brilliantly weaves together an array of old threads (the farm boy who seeks adventure, the wise old man, the dashing hero, the princess, the evil empire, the plucky rebels, the Tao, and so on)  into a “new” story. As such, Cameron should not be criticized for re-using a plot device or theme-provided the movie successfully weaves the old into something new. If Cameron simply copies these other works, then the film should be regarded as artistic plagiarism. Interestingly, Cameron’s Terminator film was alleged to have been “copied” from two episodes of the Outer Limit. My own view is that although Cameron was probably (okay certainly) influenced by those episodes, Terminator is is significantly different story.

Second, comparisons are being drawn to the Vietnam war (and other conflicts). On the face of it, this seems reasonable. Naturally enough, the fact that visually the soldiers and equipment resemble those of the Vietnam war (for example the VTOL craft look like modified Huey UH-1 helicopters) lends credence to this claim. Of course, while there may be debate about whether we need yet another  movie commenting on the Vietnam War (or commenting on the current wars through commenting on Vietnam) even if the movie does this it is no mark against it. After all, some very good movies are created to (in part) comment on war.

Naturally, there is also some criticism of the cost of the movie. While cost is something worth considering, it is only a real problem if the movie does not make a profit. After all, it is not just a matter of how much a movie costs-it is also a matter of how the cost matches up against the box office take (and other revenue). If Avatar makes a Titanic amount of money, then the movie would be a success financially. Sure, it would be better to make that sort of  money without spending as much, but such profits can be presented as a justification for the expenditures.

Speaking of Titantic (and Terminator 2), Cameron has a track record of being able to deliver. Perhaps this will hold this time as well. Then again, perhaps Avatar will not turn out to be like Dances with Wolves, but rather Waterworld.

As a final point, even the negative buzz about the movie might help it. After all, the more people hear about the film, the more likely it is that they will go to see it on opening day. Of course, too much negative buzz might have the opposite effect.

The recent economic disaster has raised the old questions about the fall of empires. Now, the questions are being asked about the United States. While the rise of China, India and other countries has left the US in a relatively less elevated position, we have actually be losing ground by declining. Signs of this include the obvious: a weaker economy, talk of moving away from the dollar as the world’s currency, less political clout and so on. Signs also include the less obvious: less brain drain from other countries to the US, less innovation in science and technology, and so on.

One reason for the decline of the US is that the US reached its height in the ruins of WWII. The other great industrial nations were in ruins or were at least badly damaged by the war. While the Soviets did present a challenge, they were (as history showed) burning bright by burning far too hot. The US, whose lands were not directly touched by war, was in a position to become a true superpower.

Now the world has recovered from WWII and the US is thus losing relative ground. Also, former empires such as China and India are reclaiming their former glory and power, thus returning to the world stage in force. These other countries are spending considerable resources on the future: education, research, energy and so forth.

Naturally, some folks might think that the signs are in place: the United States reached its peak and is now in a slow (or not so slow) fall.  It is quite reasonable to suspect that the US must fall. After all, all other empires have fallen and thus empires seem to be analogous to living things: they are born, reach their maturity and then perish.

Of course, while the history is accurate, the analogy is flawed. Living creatures do perish because they cannot replace their mortal flesh. But, an empire need never fall in this manner. Provided it can keep restoring its vigor and the basis for its success, it could be effectively immortal. The challenge is, of course, to pull of this seemingly imposisble task. Of course, it is not actually impossible-just rather difficult.

Even if the United States does decline, it need not become irrelevant nor need it stay down forever. After all, China was once a great empire that fell into a great decline. But China is on the rise and is a great nation once again. Interestlingly, China was rather easily defeated by the Japanese just a few decades ago. But now China is a giant looming over Japan. This, of course, may not last-as an empire rises again it can easily slide down the wheel of history and end up back on the ground.

Whether the United States declines or not is largely up to us. One factor that seems to be driving our decline now is the rot and corruption within our economic and political systems. Perhaps this will be the cancer that brings about our end, or perhaps it is but one disease among many infecting the political body.