getting more disillusioned with chomsky - 10/10/08

From Buck on October 10th, 2008:

I gotta say, I'm getting more and more disillusioned with Noam Chomsky. So much of what he says seems so one sided. It would take a very big time commitment for me to research the whole Israel/Palestine issue, including, like I said in the previous e-mail, to simply find out more on the history of "palestine" which is more specifically a name for a general area in the middle east, literally. It seems to me the more apocalyptic image he can create and horrific situations he can describe the more he'll be believed because he's an MIT professor. There's a lot to be said about this strategy, sometimes you need to exaggerate a situation to get the necessary amount of attention in order to help form a solution, sort of over shoot things in the hopes of reaching a middle ground. However, at least in my eyes, he's losing some credibility. Like I said, I'd need A LOT of time to look into the history of the Israel/Palestine issue, but what I am aware of is that Israel did agree to grant Palestine sovereignty if Hamas took out those sections of their constitution, they refused. I also know that Israel started evacuating the settlements which constitute a significant point of contention within this conflict, not to mention that Hamas has recently fired rockets at an Israeli school. Chomsky says Israel uses the West Bank as target practice, and doesn't mention that Palestine does the same thing. C'mon, this is so one sided! This is against the founding principle of our party, the thing that the two of us are in total agreement, there are two sides to a story, and usually, both sides are to blame. Chomsky, in his role as one of the most influential intellectuals in the world, should make it a priority to tell the whole story. Given his status in the academic word, the simple act of ommision communicates a tremondous amount. The impression I got from this excerpt is that the state of Israel should be dissolved (not to say that that's what he believes, but that is the honest impression I got from the language he was using).

On to the next thing:

That is fair, but I did say that this was a superficial point and that I didn't agree with it for those reasons. I don't think either candidate will bring about any major change, but the appearance to the rest of the world of a democrat of mixed race as president after 8 years of bush comes as no surprise to be popular. Its too bad for McCain because the deck is already stacked against him, just being an old, white, republican following eight years of the very unpopular Bush.

The point I was trying to make about this, wasn't quite that it's a superficial reason to vote for him but that the opinion polls themselves and peoples reasons for saying he would be better for the U.S. or that they would vote for Obama are superficial. What I mean by this is that there does not seem to be any legitimate, solid foundation for why the international world would prefer Obama (other than "he said..."). The initial boost to U.S. favorability as a result of Americans voting for a black man would wear off after a few months and return back to regular levels. The same would happen after any drop as a result of McCain winning because again peoples reasons for not wanting him are purely superficial. So when faced with the reality of McCain and his pro-green environmental policies, favoring diplomacy, better leadership for the economy, the drop would be offset and return back to regular levels, and most likely better than Bush. What it seems like you think I meant by it being superficial is the same way people would vote Liberal in Canada just so Conservatives won't be in power, sort of like that's not a good reason to vote for a guy just because people have irrational desires to have Obama as next president of the U.S. But the reason i think it's superficial is because beyond possibly 6 months it won't really be any more of a boost to international opinion than McCain winning.

And third, the Space race.

A few things I take issue on with the Chomsky quote. First of all, he says:

"Nobody really believes that the US is trying to protect itself from North Korea. That's not serious"

Well I agree that that's not the reason we're developing our space program, but to dismiss N. Korea so easily is almost just as foolish. They have spent time working on missiles that could reach the western U.S., Hawaii and the coastal areas. That is pretty serious, and should not be so easily dismissed. Next, is his comparison to the development of Navy technology, which is an extremely good example:

You know, the development of space technology, including space warfare today, is similar in its technological-industrial significance to the development of navies a hundred years ago. If you look at say, England and Germany a century ago, which had the most advanced navies then, they were dealing with extremely tricky technological problems. Putting a huge gun on a moving platform and ensuring that it could hit another moving target was one of the hardest technical problems of the early twentieth century.

In fact, Clinton-era publications of the US Space Command describe control over space as a parallel to control over the oceans a century ago. Then, countries built navies to protect and enhance their power in commercial and strategic interests. Today, the militarization of space is intended to protect US investments and commercial interest and US hegemony around the world.

So what is Chomsky saying here? What I can gather is that since he believes the U.S. should abandon its ambitions for space and he is making this comparison, then he similarly believes England, which is the closest parallel to the U.S. today, should have abandoned their naval ambitions. Seriously? Do you think that would've been a good idea? Do you think the Germans would have abandoned their naval development if England did? Aside from the civilian benefits that come from military research, this is a ridiculous idea. It would have been terrible for England to stop developing their navy, and silly to think that Germany would have stopped if England did. In fact the best proof of this is the exact example that Chomsky himself uses about the U.S. and the militarization of space:

We're looking at the dawn of a new arms race. For example, Germany technically opposes the US space militarization program, but is bound to get involved. Otherwise it will be left behind in the development of advanced technology. Germany understands that very well. The US understands it too, and they fully expect that Germany and other countries that they want on board will go along with the program. The Bush Administration recognizes that US power is so overwhelming that it can't really be opposed, even if countries object to US actions.

So in the case of Germany, they would've been happy to continue developing their navy, including their devastating U-boats used during WWII, if England had stopped. It just means that they get a bit of time to get ahead while England watches on, until they realize they might as well hop on the bandwagon. That brings me to my third point, that none of this addressed what I said about China, that China would be happy to continue their space research even if the U.S. were to stop theirs. They don't pursue militarizing space just to make sure they keep up with the U.S. They also do it because there is a strong Chinese belief that not only should they keep up with the West but also that China is the center of everything and the most important, and they have the right to supremacy, see their central belief of "The Mandate of Heaven" which parallels very nicely to "Manifest Destiny." Again, all you have to do is look at their treatment of Tibet, Taiwan, Hong Kong. They believe they have every right in the world to those sovereign states, they historically "belong" to China, and so it is one of their central goals to bring that forward.

Finally, there's this point:

"Destruction of the environment is not only rational; it's exactly what you're taught to do in college. If you take an economics or a political science course, you're taught that humans are supposed to be rational wealth accumulators, each acting as an individual to maximize his own wealth in the market."

This is another example of Chomsky looking at only one part of the picture, and the more apocalyptic he sounds the more authority he seems to have, because why would you exaggerate the "destruction of the species"? What Chomsky failed to mention here is that what we're also taught in economics are theories of externalities and the "tragedy of the commons." Basically they outline how to deal with the environment etc... that we actually are better off, from an economics perspective, caring for the environment etc... and not exhausting resources and all this. I'm in a bit of a rush right now, but I can write more about it in another e-mail if you want.

Anyway, you're up!

p.s. How beautiful has the weather been/going to be this weekend?? It's awesome, definitely wanna go for some motorcycle rides... stupid homework...

the dawn of a new arms race - 09/10/08

From Brent on October 9th, 2008:

Even you, as a Canadian that is extremely interested in american politics, wasn't aware of Obama's blatant refusal to have any kind of debates or town hall meetings prior to the conventions, or McCain's desire for Nuclear disarmament, and I don't think you knew much about McCain's green ambitions either (McCain-Lieberman for cap and trade). So how straightforward really is the significance of the foreign polls, when people are so ill-informed.

That is fair, but I did say that this was a superficial point and that I didn't agree with it for those reasons. I don't think either candidate will bring about any major change, but the appearance to the rest of the world of a democrat of mixed race as president after 8 years of bush comes as no surprise to be popular. It's too bad for McCain because the deck is already stacked against him, just being an old, white, republican following eight years of the very unpopular Bush.

Now, regarding the space race. I'm sending the following quote from an interview with Noam Chomsky:

"
Noam Chomsky:

Take what's called the Missile Defense Program, which I think is mislabeled. It's actually a "militarization of space" program. The missile defense component is a minor feature that nobody takes very seriously. Nobody really believes that the US is trying to protect itself from North Korea. That's not serious. But the militarization of space is quite serious. Like a lot of Bush's policies, this one goes back to the Clinton period, but it's being enhanced. We are looking at the extension of military force from armies, to navies, to the air and now to outer space. You know, the development of space technology, including space warfare today, is similar in its technological-industrial significance to the development of navies a hundred years ago. If you look at say, England and Germany a century ago, which had the most advanced navies then, they were dealing with extremely tricky technological problems. Putting a huge gun on a moving platform and ensuring that it could hit another moving target was one of the hardest technical problems of the early twentieth century.

In fact, Clinton-era publications of the US Space Command describe control over space as a parallel to control over the oceans a century ago. Then, countries built navies to protect and enhance their power in commercial and strategic interests. Today, the militarization of space is intended to protect US investments and commercial interest and US hegemony around the world.

MADRE:

It's well known that the militarization of space is both extremely hazardous and easily avoidable. It would be possible to terminate it right now, before it even begins. Why isn't this happening?

Noam Chomsky:

We're looking at the dawn of a new arms race. For example, Germany technically opposes the US space militarization program, but is bound to get involved. Otherwise it will be left behind in the development of advanced technology. Germany understands that very well. The US understands it too, and they fully expect that Germany and other countries that they want on board will go along with the program. The Bush Administration recognizes that US power is so overwhelming that it can't really be opposed, even if countries object to US actions.

In fact, the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 bans militarization. Potential adversaries of the US, and even its allies, are so far behind that these countries are very interested in maintaining the treaty. Europe and the rest of the world want a strong reaffirmation of the Treaty and the US is unilaterally trying to derail it. Termination of the treaty would mean that the US could develop satellite weapons, put offensive weapons in space. It would probably mean using nuclear power in space. All of this leads to some very dangerous scenarios, including destruction of the species.

MADRE:

The Outer Space Treaty is one of many international agreements that the Bush Administration has violated or terminated. What's the logic behind this trend?

Noam Chomsky:

It's actually quite rational. Take the Kyoto Protocol. Destruction of the environment is not only rational; it's exactly what you're taught to do in college. If you take an economics or a political science course, you're taught that humans are supposed to be rational wealth accumulators, each acting as an individual to maximize his own wealth in the market. The market is regarded as democratic because everybody has a vote. Of course, some have more votes than others because your votes depend on the number of dollars you have, but everybody participates and therefore it's called democratic.

Well, suppose that we believe what we are taught. It follows that if there are dollars to be made, you destroy the environment. The reason is elementary. The people who are going to be harmed by this are your grandchildren and they don't have any votes in the market. Their interests are worth zero. Anybody that pays attention to their grandchildren's interests is being irrational. Because what you're supposed to do is maximize your own interests, measured by wealth, right now. Nothing else matters. So destroying the environment and militarizing outer space are rational policies, but within a framework of institutional lunacy. If you accept the institutional lunacy, then the policies are rational.

"

To you, sir.

an incredibly optimistic view of the world - 9/10/08

From Buck on October 9th, 2008


So first off, I think it's an incredibly optimistic view of the world to think that China is only going after the weaponization of space in reaction to the U.S. Granted that is part of it, but I can tell you from my experience with China, the Chinese, and studying its people and culture (especially in modern times), there is a very good chance, almost guaranteed, that China would pursue it regardless. China is extremely nationalistic and has had a kind of inferiority complex ever since about the mid 19th century as a result of the west not only having surpassed them technologically and economically but also having effectively colonizing. Ever since, there's a very strong effort to define what is China and to ensure that what is China is the best or among the best in the world. You can see this with Tibet, the huge exhibitions of pride when they gained control of Hong Kong, their relations and threats toward Taiwan, their total disregard for the environment (another kind of Chicken race), and the whole mind set of their olympic games. And that's where the game of chicken comes in. The U.S. is not willing to take the risk that China will end their space race if they do it first.

As for the polls, it's true that the poll is straight forward but I would argue that its significance is not so much. First, like I said I believe that those opinion polls would only be reflected within the first few months after the election, if Obama were to win it would jump initially with McCain it would drop or stay flat. Then it would come back to an equilibrium, because as we seem to agree, there seems to be little actual difference between the two in terms of actual policy which is what ultimately will have the largest impact on opinion. Also it seems that there is a general optimism about both candidates, and for myself I'm pretty happy with the choices we have (at least with regard to foreign policy and world opinion). The real way to see how they would affect international opinion in the long run is to see their record in foreign policy. McCain has a very strong record, he's had good associations with foreign leaders for example, and is generally seen in a favorable light. He is also in favor of diplomatic strategies and would like to begin pulling out of Iraq because of the stabilization that has been happening there, not to mention what I said about his nuclear policy.

Second, in terms of the international polls, I think it's a really bad idea to base a decision based on those polls. Like I said there are other things that would determine long term public opinion. Second, as much as the international community may have invested in this election, the U.S. and American citizens have much much more. For example and most importantly at the moment, the economy, which I think Obama would not be very good for. It is especially not a good idea to be looking at international (particularly european) choices in this election just by looking at the point they're in. They're financial situation and political situation is a mess, a complete mess. Nobody knows what to do or is putting forward any ideas. There was a big summit called yesterday I believe, and Germany, the biggest economy in the EU didn't even show up! Not only that, but you have to look at what effects public opinion. The U.S. itself has a generally very left leaning media not to mention an entire entertainment industry that literally is in love with Obama. A good example to see how controlled the information is, I had a friend in San Diego that had just spent 4 months in Europe, and you know she said that most Europeans she met thought the election for president was between Obama and Clinton?? Even you, as a Canadian that is extremely interested in american politics, wasn't aware of Obama's blatant refusal to have any kind of debates or town hall meetings prior to the conventions, or McCain's desire for Nuclear disarmament, and I don't think you knew much about McCain's green ambitions either (McCain-Lieberman for cap and trade). So how straightforward really is the significance of the foreign polls, when people are so ill-informed?

Now I'm slacking from lunch! I'm starving and gotta head off to work soon. Stayed up til 5:30 last night too writing a paper, jeesh. But political e-mail debates always come first!

the weaponization of space: the U.S. and China - 9/10/08

From Brent on October 9th, 2008

Polls are a funny thing. They can be manipulated to serve a specific purpose as
well as the meaning of the results skewed accordingly.

Granted. But surely not all polls are so biased, especially when the question is as simple as: "Who is your prefered candidate in the US Presidential Election?"

Of 22 countries polled, the overwhelming answer (4 to 1) was Obama. The options given were: Obama, McCain, Either/Neither/No Difference, Other, and Don't Know. Again, relating this to what I said yesterday, this doesn't ask who would bring the best change but re-affirms my argument that he would be best to improve global relations.

Actually, that was also one of the questions: "The poll also explored the expected impact of the US election. In 17 of the 22 countries surveyed the most common view is that, if Barack Obama is elected president, America's relations with the rest of the world are likely to get better. ... On average 46 per cent think that US relations with the world would get better with Obama, 22 per cent that relations would stay the same, and 7 per cent that they would get worse. However only 20 per cent think relations would get better under McCain. The largest number - 37 per cent - think relations under a McCain presidency would stay the same and 16 per cent think they would get worse." http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/views_on_countriesregions_bt/533.php?lb=brglm&pnt=533&nid=&id=

Also did you know that McCain has supported dismantling our nuclear arsenal. Getting rid of em all in like 10 years (can't remember exactly what it was).

I was unaware that McCain had that policy. I'll look it up!

The trouble with the space race and nukes is it's like a game of chicken where
both sides would disarm but no one wants to risk being the first. Anyway, I
better get back to class!

I can understand that argument regarding nuclear weapons, but don't think it applies to the space race. With little currently in place, it is hard trying to argue that one wouldn't want to be first to disarm. Currently, the US is investing the most in the weaponization of space. This will CREATE an arms race, for other powers' fears of being targeted. Thus the Chinese test to blow an orbiting satellite out of space... Just my lefty input!

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-12/05/content_6298849.htm

re: global polls - 9/10/08

From Buck on October 9th, 2008

Polls are a funny thing. They can be manipulated to serve a specific purpose and the meaning of the results skewed accordingly. I think if the questions were posed like "Do you think our country should eliminate nuclear weapons even if this country still keeps them?" or "Should our government pursue nuclear weapons while these countries still have them?" or "Should our country still have them if this country that has relations with and a history of supporting terrorists is developing them?"

In fact I've seen such polls, and there are very different results (unfortunately I can't remember where I saw them).

The thing with Iran is no one really has a problem with them creating the tech for power. But there are much smaller amounts of fuel needed for energy than weapons. Iran was processing much more than would be necessary for energy alone, and this is what the concern is.

Also did you know that McCain has supported dismantling our nuclear arsenal, dismantling in something like 10 years (can't remember exactly what it was)? The trouble with the space race and nukes is it's like a game of chicken where both sides would disarm but no one wants to risk being the first. Anyway, I better get back to class!

global polls and nuclear proliferation -9/10/08

From Brent on October 9th, 2008

Some global polls:

One of my greatest fears is nuclear weapons (not energy). We both know the NNPT is being flagrantly violated by most nuclear powers. But what does the public think?

-The goal of eliminating nuclear weapons is supported by 73% of Americans and 63% of Russian populations.

-Most Russians (72%) and Americans (80%) also favor a new treaty banning all weapons in space.

There is a lot of talk about the Israel-Palestine conflict, and how different nations side. What does the global public think?

-Most publics oppose taking sides in Israel-Palestine conflict. Three side with Palestine (Egypt, Iran, and Turkey), none side with Israel (including the USA). Most favor UN playing robust role in peace enforcement.

And always, talks about Iran developing nuclear weapons (which I don't think they would EXCEPT as deterrent, and even then ...). Again, what does the Iranian population think?

-Iranians oppose producing nuclear weapons (58% against, with 23% thinking it is permissible), but 81% agree producing nuclear energy is "very important" for Iran.

Its a really interesting site. What do you think?