Supremacy by Stealth

Friday, July 11th, 2008

Robert Kaplan offers his rules for Supremacy by Stealth:

  1. Produce More Joppolos
  2. Stay on the Move
  3. Emulate Second-Century Rome
  4. Use the Military to Promote Democracy
  5. Be Light and Lethal
  6. Bring Back the Old Rules
  7. Remember the Philippines
  8. The Mission Is Everything
  9. Fight on Every Front
  10. Speak Victorian, Think Pagan

The last of those rules became one of the sub-titles of the Coming Anarchy blog:

Imperialism in antiquity was in many respects a strain of isolationism: the demand for absolute security at home led powers to try to dominate the world around them. That pagan-Roman model of imperialism contrasts sharply with the altruistic Victorian one, exemplified by Prime Minister William Ewart Gladstone in his comment about protecting “the sanctity of life in the hill villages of Afghanistan.” Americans are truly idealistic by nature, but even if we weren’t, our historical and geographical circumstances would necessitate that U.S. foreign policy be robed in idealism, so as to garner public support and ultimately be effective. And yet security concerns necessarily make our foreign policy more pagan. The idealistic shorthand of “democracy,” “economic development,” and “human rights,” by means of which the media make sense of events in distant parts of the world, conceals many harsh and complicated ground-level truths. Remember that even Gladstone’s vision was more effectively implemented by the realpolitik of statesmen such as Lord Palmerston and Benjamin Disraeli, who kept illiberal empires like Germany and Russia at bay and retook Sudan from Islamic extremists.

By sustaining ourselves first, we will be able to do the world the most good. Some 200 countries, plus thousands of NGOs represent a chaos of interests. Without the organizing force of a great and self-interested liberal power, they are unable to advance the interests of humanity as a whole…

Robert Conquest’s Three Laws of Politics

Friday, July 11th, 2008

Robert Conquest’s Three Laws of Politics:

  1. Everyone is conservative about what he knows best.
  2. Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing.
  3. The simplest way to explain the behavior of any bureaucratic organization is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of its enemies.

John Derbyshire adds this:

Of the Second Law, Conquest gave the Church of England and Amnesty International as examples. Of the Third, he noted that a bureaucracy sometimes actually is controlled by a secret cabal of its enemies — e.g. the postwar British secret service.

John Moore thinks the third law is almost right; it should read “assume that it is controlled by a cabal of the enemies of the stated purpose of that bureaucracy.”

Francis W. Porretto notes that Cyril Northcote Parkinson studied the same phenomenon of bureaucratic behavior:

Parkinson promulgated a number of laws of bureaucracy that serve to explain a huge percentage of its characteristics. They’ve exhibited remarkable predictive power within their domain. The first of these is the best known:

Parkinson’s First Law: Work expands to fill the time available for its completion.

Parkinson inferred this effect from two central principles governing the behavior of bureaucrats:

  1. Officials want to multiply subordinates, not rivals.
  2. Officials make work for one another.

Like most generalizations, these are not always true…but the incentives that apply specifically to tax-funded government bureaucracies make them true much more often than not. They make a striking contrast with the almost exactly opposite behavior observable in private enterprise.
[...]
That young bureaucrat will profit from deliberate ineffectiveness to the extent that he can get himself viewed as an asset by his superiors and a non-threat by his peers. His superiors want him to produce justifications for the enlargement of their domains. His peers simply ask that he not tread on their provinces.

Miltion Friedman noted that bureaucratic resource allocation involves spending other people’s money on other people, so there are no compelling reasons to control either cost or quality — but a bureaucrat will learn, given time, how to “spend on others” in such a fashion that the primary benefit flows to himself.

To do this, bureaucrats must manage perceptions, so that their work seems both necessary and successful:

Von Clausewitz and others have termed war “a continuation of politics by other means,” but when viewed from the perspective of the State Department official, war is the declaration that his organization has failed of its purpose. He sees it as bad public relations for his entire function. Thus, even when the nation’s interests would be overwhelmingly better served by war than by the continuation of diplomacy, the State Department man will prefer diplomacy. It’s in his demesne, and enhances his prestige by enhancing the prestige of his trade.

It’s not too much to say that averting war regardless of its desirability or justifiability is near the top of every State Department functionary’s list of priorities. In this pursuit, the State Department will often find itself opposing even peacetime operations of the military designed to improve its effectiveness, such as the acquisition of new weapons or the enlargement of its ranks.

Both Pills Claim To Be Red

Thursday, July 10th, 2008

Mencius Moldbug summarizes the problem of bad government — and progress:

The leading cause of violent death and misery galore in the modern era is bad government. Most of us grew up thinking we live in a time and place in which Science and Democracy, which put a man on the moon and brought him back with Tang, have either cured this ill or reduced it to a manageable and improving condition. That is, most of us grew up believing — and most Americans, whatever their party registration, still believe — in progress.

Both these statements are facts. But there are two ways to interpret the second. Either (a), blue pill, the belief in progress is an accurate assessment of reality, or (b), red pill, it isn’t. Our pills correspond to visions of the future, and neither is my invention. The blue pill is marked millennium. The red pill is marked anakyklosis.

To choose (b), we have to believe that hundreds of millions of people living in a more or less free society, many of whom are literate and even reasonably knowledgeable, completely misunderstand reality — and more specifically, history. A hard pill to swallow? Not at all, because the blue pill tastes just as big going down. To believe in progress, you have to believe that similar numbers of our ancestors were just as misguided — enthralled by racism, classism, and other nefarious “ideologies,” from which humanity is in the progress of cleansing itself.

Both pills, in other words, claim to be red. But when we note that progressive ideas flow freely through the most influential circles in our society, whereas reactionary ideas are scorned, marginalized and often even criminalized, we can tell the difference.

In case you’re not familiar with his red- and blue-pill explanations, I’ve discussed them before.

Anyway, here’s a thought experiment on progress:

Imagine that there had been no scientific or technical progress at all during the 20th century. That the government of 2008 had to function with the technical base of 1908. Surely, if the quality of government has increased or even just remained constant, its performance with the same tools should be just as good. And with better technology, it should do even better.

But without computers, cell phones or even motor vehicles, 19th-century America could rebuild destroyed cities instantly — at least, instantly by today’s standards. Imagine what this vanished society, which if we could see it with our own eyes would strike us as no less foreign than any country in the world today, could accomplish if it got its hands on 21st-century gadgets — without any of the intervening social and political progress.

When we think of progress we tend to think of two curves summed. X, the change in our understanding and control of nature, slopes upward except in the most dire circumstances — the fall of Rome, for example. But X is a confounding variable. Y, the change in our quality of government, is the matter at hand. Extracting Y from X+Y is not a trivial exercise.

But broad thought-experiments — like imagining what would become of 1908 America, if said continent magically popped up in the mid-Atlantic in 2008, and had to modernize and compete in the global economy — tell a different story. I am very confident that Old America would be the world’s leading industrial power within the decade, and I suspect it would attract a lot of immigration from New America. The seeds of decay were there, certainly, but they had hardly begun to sprout. At least by today’s standards.

Surely a healthy, stable society should be able to thrive in a steady state without any technical improvements at all. But if we imagine the 20th century without technical progress, we see an almost pure century of disaster. Even when we restrict our imagination to the second half of the twentieth century, to imagine the America of 2008 reduced to the technology of 1950 is a bleak, bleak thought. If you are still taking the blue pills, to what force do you ascribe this anomalous decay?

Whereas the red pill gives us an easy explanation: a decaying system of government has been camouflaged and ameliorated by the advance of technology. Of course, X may overcome Y and lead us to the Singularity, in which misgovernment is no more troublesome than acne. Or Y may overcome X, and produce the Antisingularity — a new fall of Rome. It’s a little difficult to invent self-inventing AI when you’re eating cold beans behind the perimeter of a refugee camp in Redwood Shores, and Palo Alto is RPG squeals, mortar whumps and puffs of black smoke on the horizon, as the Norteños and the Zetas finally have it out over the charred remains of your old office park. Unlikely, sure, but do you understand the X-Y interaction well enough to preclude this outcome? Because I don’t.

Swallowing the red pill leads us, like Neo, into a completely different reality. In reality (b), bad government has not been defeated at all. History is not over. Oh, no. We are still living it. Perhaps we are in the positions of the French of 1780 or the Russians of 1914, who had no idea that the worlds they lived in could degenerate so rapidly into misery and terror.

Is the abyss this close? I don’t think so, but surely the materials are present.

Hot Airships

Wednesday, July 9th, 2008

I was recently reminded of the SF trope of establishing a parallel universe by sticking a few airships in the sky, and that got me to thinking about everyone’s favorite hydrogen- and helium-filled leviathans — and why hot air works so well for balloons, yet we never hear about hot-air dirigibles.

It turns out, they exist. The Airship Alberto, for instance, uses hot air for lift, which means it can deflate and fold for storage, like an ordinary balloon, without a large hangar and ground crew:

The Alberto — named after Alberto Santos-Dumont, of course — has a semi-rigid, umbrella-like skeleton, unlike a balloon, which gives it the structural rigidity to handle higher air speeds and tighter maneuvering — and with vectored thrust from the rear-mounted propeller, it is quite maneuverable.

Of course, the real advantage of the Alberto‘s hot-air design is that it’s one-tenth as expensive as a helium dirigible. (They expect the sale price of the aircraft to be between $100,000 and $200,000, the price of a small airplane or mid-sized sailboat.)

So why use helium at all? Because a given volume of hot air can lift only about one-third as much as the same volume of helium — so a hot-air airship needs to be roughly 1.5 times as tall, wide, and long as a comparable helium-filled airship.

If helium is that much better than hot air, how much better is hydrogen than helium? Not that much better, it turns out. Amateur chemists might note that hydrogen has an atomic weight of 1, versus helium’s atomic weight of 4, and assume that it would have four times the lift. After a little thought, they might realize that hydrogen (H2) has a molecular weight of 2, versus helium’s 4, implying half the density. The key is that half the density does not mean twice the buoyancy:

The density at sea-level and 0°C for air and each of the gases is:

Thus helium is almost twice as dense as hydrogen. However, buoyancy depends upon the difference of the densities (?gas) – (?air) rather than upon their ratios. Thus the difference in buoyancies is about 8%, as seen from the buoyancy equation:

  • Buoyant mass (or effective mass) = mass × (1 – ?air/?gas)
  • Therefore the buoyant mass for one liter of hydrogen in air as:
    • 0.08988 g * (1 – (1.292 / 0.08988) ) = -1.202 g
  • And the buoyant mass for one liter of helium in air as:
    • 0.1786 g * (1 – (1.292 / 0.1786) ) = -1.113 g

The negative signs indicate that these gases tend to rise in air.

Thus hydrogen’s additional buoyancy compared to helium is:

  • 1.202 / 1.113 = 1.080, or approximately 8.0%

Bureaucratic Sclerosis

Wednesday, July 9th, 2008

Most observers interpret bureaucratic sclerosis as a sign of a government which is too powerful, Mencius Moldbug notes:

In fact it is a sign of a government which is too weak. If seventeen officials need to provide signoff for you to repaint the fence in your front yard, this is not because George W. Bush, El Maximo Jefe, was so concerned about the toxicity of red paint that he wants to make seventeen-times-sure that no wandering fruit flies are spattered with the nefarious chemical. It is because a lot of people have succeeded in making work for themselves, and that work has been spread wide and well. They are thriving off tiny pinhole leaks through which power leaks out of the State. A strong [sovereign] would plug the leaks, and retire the officials.

Outside the Communist bloc proper, of course, the ultimate in power leakage and resulting bureaucracy was India’s infamous Permit Raj, which still to some extent exists. Needless to say, if the subcontinent was run on a profit basis, the Permit Raj would not be good business. In fact, quite amusingly and with no apparent sense of irony, our favorite newspaper recently printed an article in which the following lines appear:

Vietnam’s biggest selling point for many companies is its political stability. Like China, it has a nominally Communist one-party system that crushes dissent, keeps the military under tight control and changes government policies and leaders slowly.

“Communism means more stability,” Mr. Shu, the chief financial officer of Texhong, said, voicing a common view among Asian executives who make investment decisions. At least a few American executives agree, although they never say so on the record.

Democracies like those in Thailand and the Philippines have proved more vulnerable to military coups and instability. A military coup in Thailand in September 2006 was briefly followed by an attempt, never completed, to impose nationalistic legislation penalizing foreign companies.

“That sent the wrong signal that we would not welcome foreign investment — this has ruined the confidence of investors locally and internationally,” the finance minister Surapong Suebwonglee said in an interview in Bangkok.

The ironies! Of course, perhaps it is not so ironic after all, as perhaps the main reason that the old China Hands, the men (such as Owen Lattimore) who by “manipulating procedural outcomes” gave China to Mao, thought the Communists were the shizzle is that they were obviously so strong. America could really do great things in Asia with the ruthlessly indoctrinated divisions of the PLA on its side, as opposed to Chiang Kai-Shek, who looked like his main interests were opium and little boys.

After fifty million deaths and the annihilation of traditional Chinese culture, what still remains is that strength. There is not much antinomianism in China, which has reduced its totalitarian pretensions to one simple and easily-obeyed rule: do not challenge the Party for power. The result, though profoundly flawed, is the most successful capitalist country in the world. All things considered, it is certainly one of the best to do business in — as the article describes.

Hans Reiser: A jailhouse interview

Wednesday, July 9th, 2008

Stephen Elliott discusses his jailhouse interview with murderer — and Linux guru — Hans Reiser:

When told two days later his estranged wife was missing, he refused to talk to the police. They started following him but he engaged in counter-surveillance, driving in circles, pulling over to the side of the road, exiting and entering the freeway. Within two days of being notified Nina was missing, he hired a well-respected criminal defense attorney, William Du Bois. Hans withdrew large sums of money from the bank. When the police found his car — it was missing the passenger seat and rear assembly — they uncovered two books on murder, including “Homicide” by David Simon. Simon wrote about the importance of not talking to the police and how a crime is rarely solved without a body. Without a body, you first have to prove the person is dead.
[...]
Everything Hans said reinforced the image I already had of him. He wasn’t interested in what was true, only in whether or not he had been treated fairly. There wasn’t a shred of remorse in his body. He was a sociopath, incapable of caring about another human being. A narcissist. A manipulator who thinks everybody else is stupid. The strangest thing about this murderer is how he never gets away with anything. Nobody ever believes him but he keeps lying anyway. He’s a genius who invented a new way to store information, supervised millions of lines of complex code, and he has no idea how he is being perceived.
[...]
Five days later, Hans took the police to Nina’s body. He had buried her less than a mile from his house, not far from the trailhead. He lived close to the Redwood Regional Park, a place where you could hike for days. Search and rescue had scoured the area with ground troops and cadaver dogs, but the body was hidden in a shallow grave more than 100 feet down a steep ravine. She had been strangled. His lawyers stated that Hans was remorseful; that he was trying to make things right. I knew that wasn’t true. He had maintained his innocence since being arrested in October 2006. I was the last journalist to interview him before his confession. He wasn’t remorseful, he was angry. He still felt the world owed him something.

Reiser had an interesting history:

He grew up in California and dropped out of his junior high school before he was 14, citing disagreements with the conventional schooling system. He was accepted at the University of California, Berkeley at the age of 15, which he attended off and on until he received a BA in Systematizing (an individualized major dealing with physics, math and related topics) in 1992, at the age of 28. Reiser was also one of the founding members of the Open Computing Facility at UC Berkeley. Though preferring higher education, Reiser chose not to pursue a Ph.D., citing the same reasons he had dropped out of junior high school.

In 1999, while working in Russia, Hans Reiser selected from a mail-order bride catalogue, and subsequently married, Nina Sharanova (???? ????????), a Russian-born and trained obstetrician and gynecologist[9] who was studying to become an American licensed OB/GYN. They had two children.

The onion conundrum

Wednesday, July 9th, 2008

The onion conundrum is only a conundrum to those who claim that speculators cause volatility:

The bulbous root is the only commodity for which futures trading is banned. Back in 1958, onion growers convinced themselves that futures traders (and not the new farms sprouting up in Wisconsin) were responsible for falling onion prices, so they lobbied an up-and-coming Michigan Congressman named Gerald Ford to push through a law banning all futures trading in onions. The law still stands.

And yet even with no traders to blame, the volatility in onion prices makes the swings in oil and corn look tame, reinforcing academics’ belief that futures trading diminishes extreme price swings. Since 2006, oil prices have risen 100%, and corn is up 300%. But onion prices soared 400% between October 2006 and April 2007, when weather reduced crops, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, only to crash 96% by March 2008 on overproduction and then rebound 300% by this past April.

The volatility has been so extreme that the son of one of the original onion growers who lobbied Congress for the trading ban now thinks the onion market would operate more smoothly if a futures contract were in place.

How Much Does It Cost You in Wages if You Sound Black?

Wednesday, July 9th, 2008

I don’t think this headline conveys the right idea, but it describes an interesting study. How Much Does It Cost You in Wages if You Sound Black?

As part of a large longitudinal study called the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, follow-up validation interviews were conducted over the phone and recorded.

Grogger was able to take these phone interviews, purge them of any identifying information, and then ask people to try to identify the voices as to whether the speaker was black or white. The listeners were pretty good at distinguishing race through voices: 98 percent of the time they got the gender of the speaker right, 84 percent of white speakers were correctly identified as white, and 77 percent of black speakers were correctly identified as black.

Grogger asked multiple listeners to rate each voice and assigned the voice either to a distinctly white or black category (if the listeners all tended to agree on the race), or an indistinct category if there was disagreement.

Then he put this measure of whether a voice sounded black into a regression (the standard statistical tool that economists use for estimating things), and came up with the finding that blacks who “sound black” earn almost 10 percent less, even after taking into account other factors that could influence earnings. One piece of interesting good news is that blacks who do not “sound black” earn essentially the same as whites.

(It turns out you don’t want to sound southern, either. Although pretty imprecisely estimated, it is almost as bad for your wages to sound southern as it is to sound black, even controlling for whether you live in the south.)

The headline implies a certain causality, but that’s not necessarily the case at all:

It is possible that there are many other characteristics that differ between blacks who do or do not “sound black” that Grogger cannot control for in his regressions. It does seem likely that the biases at work would make his estimate an upper bound.

The death of the yearbook

Wednesday, July 9th, 2008

The Economist notes the death of the yearbook on American college campuses, as social networks like Facebook take over. Of course, what students really need is a printed archive of the “best of” their Facebook network for those four years:

Long after Facebook and MySpace have become obsolete and the electrons dispersed to the ether, future alumni might just wish for the permanence of ink on paper.

Anyway, a one-size-fits-all yearbook might work for a high school class of a few hundred, but it makes little sense for a state university class in the tens of thousands.

Moebius Redux

Tuesday, July 8th, 2008

Moebius Redux offers a fascinating look at French illustrator Jean Giraud, perhaps best known, under the pseudonym of Moebius, for co-creating the adult comic Métal Hurlant, which spawned an American version, Heavy Metal.

If you know Heavy Metal from the movie, then you might recognize Moebius’s work indirectly, from the last sequence, Taarna, which was based on his Arzach stories — but with his protagonist replaced by a hawt chick.

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that Giraud made a life-changing trip to Mexico when he was in art school — and that he went back and had an even more life-changing trip there that included some hallucinogenic mushrooms. It shows in his art.

I was shocked to find out that Giraud worked on a film adaptation of Dune for Alejandro Jodorowsky. They had funding but couldn’t arrange American distribution, so the project got cancelled. Not only did the project have Giraud doing design work, but also H. R. Giger — and he’s as creepy as you might expect.

That team went on to do Alien.

Also, Giraud’s artwork for the Dan O’Bannon short story comic “The Long Tomorrow” was a key visual reference for Blade Runner.

(Hat tip to Drawn!)

FDA issues warning on Cipro, similar antibiotics

Tuesday, July 8th, 2008

Years ago, when I was taking a fairly long course of hardcore antibiotics for a sinus infection, I noticed that my Achilles tendons would pop where they attached to the bone. I wasn’t sure what to make of it until I stumbled across a study noting that tendon injuries were higher in athletes who had recently taken antibiotics. When I mentioned this to my doctor, he looked at me like I was delusional.

Now the Food and Drug Administration has ordered makers of fluoroquinolone drugs — like Cipro, Levaquin, and Floxin — to add a “black box” warning that they can cause tendon ruptures.

The Favorite Sport of Young Aristocrats

Tuesday, July 8th, 2008

Why is antinomianism — clamoring for “change” — so popular?

Because people love power, and any movement with the power to destroy anything, or even just “change” it, has just that: power.

Antinomianism allows young aristocrats to engage in the activity that has been the favorite sport of young aristocrats since Alcibiades was a little boy: scheming for power. According to this article, for example, there are “over 7500 nonprofits” in the Bay Area, “3800 of which deal with sustainability issues.” These appear to employ approximately half of our fair city’s jeunesse dorée, occupying the best years of their lives and paying them squat. Meanwhile, container ships full of empty boxes thunder out the Golden Gate, along with approximately two trillion dollars a year of little green pieces of paper.

The Slow Death of a City Block

Tuesday, July 8th, 2008

The Slow Death of a City Block — 1900 Montgomery Street, St. Louis — demonstrates just how illiquid cities are:

In 1890, St. Louis was the fourth largest city in America. Today it’s ranked 48th.

In 1950, there were almost 900,000 people living inside the city limits. Today that same land is home to only 300,000. That’s out of two and a half million people in the metro area.

In the 1990s, the metro population increased by 1 percent. The land consumed by that population went up fifty percent.

At any given time there are about 6,000 abandoned buildings in St. Louis. I say approximately because the old ones keep falling down and new ones keep taking their place. An entire industry has built up around the millions of red bricks that come from wrecked houses. They’re stacked on pallets and shipped to other cities.

Long after the city has lost it’s economic raison d’être, buildings still stand, crumbling slowly over the course of decades.

UFC 86 fighter paydays and salaries

Tuesday, July 8th, 2008

I found the UFC 86 fighter paydays and salaries interesting:

Forrest Griffin — $250,000 ($100,000 to show, $150,000 to win)
Quinton “Rampage” Jackson — $225,000
Griffin defeated Jackson via unanimous decision

Patrick Cote — $32,000 ($16,000 to show, $16,000 to win)
Ricardo Almeida — $23,000
Cote defeated Almeida via split decision

Joe Stevenson — $60,000 ($30,000 to show, $30,000 to win)
Gleison Tibau — $11,000
Stevenson defeated Tibau via submission (guillotine choke) in round two

Josh Koscheck — $70,000 ($35,000 to show, $35,000 to win)
Chris Lytle — $14,000
Koscheck defeated Lytle via unanimous decision

Melvin Guillard — $20,000 ($10,000 to show, $10,000 to win)
Dennis Siver — $7,000
Guillard defeated Siver via technical knockout (strikes) in round one

Tyson Griffin — $40,000 ($20,000 to show, $20,000 to win)
Marcus Aurelio — $40,000
Griffin defeated Aurelio via unanimous decision

Cole Miller — $20,000 ($10,000 to show, $10,000 to win)
Jorge Gurgel — $10,000
Miller defeated Gurgel via submission (triangle choke) in round three

Justin Buchholz — $8,000 ($4,000 to show, $4,000 to win)
Corey Hill — $8,000
Buchholz defeated Hill via submission (rear naked choke) in round two

Gabriel Gonzaga — $100,000 ($50,000 to show, $50,000 to win)
Justin McCully — $5,000
Gonzaga defeated McCully via submission (kimura) in round one

Those numbers don’t include bonuses:

Fight of the Night: Forrest Griffin vs. Rampage Jackson
Submission of the Night: Cole Miller
Knockout of the Night: Melvin Guillard

Each fighter received $60,000 for their efforts in addition to their respective base salaries.

Interests and Convictions

Monday, July 7th, 2008

In Andrew Jackson: His Life and Times, H. W. Brands has this to say about interests and convictions:

In politics perhaps more than in most other arenas of human endeavor, interests and convictions tend to coincide. Whether convictions produce interests, or interests convictions, differs from person to person. But whatever their genesis, convictions and interests almost invariably end up pointing in the same direction. Those who can’t master the coincidence don’t succeed in politics, and they leave the game to those who can.