tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2439647783347819362.post8281791412129704619..comments2023-12-29T15:25:46.925-05:00Comments on "THE VIEW FROM OUTSIDE MY TINY WINDOW": Post No. 100: If Tin Whistles are Made of Tin, What are Credit Default Swap Derivatives Made Of?Inspector Clouseauhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09373932797333038561noreply@blogger.comBlogger64125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2439647783347819362.post-48778694294136772562011-05-21T02:49:30.536-04:002011-05-21T02:49:30.536-04:00You list a bunch of broad categories in which you ...You list a bunch of broad categories in which you claim that war has spurred great advancement. I will give you that military rocketry gave birth to the space program. And I will give you that the space program has given us Tang and some really nifty toilets and has greatly increased on knowledge of the effect of weightlessness on a whole range of flora and fauna. I think it might also have given us Teflon, but I'm not sure about that one. How else has the space program improved your life? <br>I would, in fact, argue that the majority of the things that you claim to have been developed BECAUSE of war simply made war more terrible, or more possible, than it previously had been. Manned flight did not develop out of war; war took manned flight and made it possible to wipe out whole cities in one fell swoop. War did not develop antibiotics; antibiotics did make it possible for many more wounded soldiers to survive their wounds. Maybe it had been better if they were never wounded in the first place. Telecommunications were not developed for use in war, but for use in business; ditto computers. The internal combustion engine was not developed for use in war, but it sure made it easier to conduct war. Please be more specific: what is it that you feel we would be doing without, had the last war been fought in, say, the 18th or 19th century?Rodakhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00077919085157653816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2439647783347819362.post-72741871660945146562009-04-05T10:10:00.000-04:002009-04-05T10:10:00.000-04:00mvd, I can connect Iraq and 9/11 but you may disag...mvd, I can connect Iraq and 9/11 but you may disagree with my reasoning. The 9/11 attacks were carried out by followers of al Quaeda and Usama bin Laden who were given safe haven by the Taleban who, in turn, ruled Afghanistan. Within a few months, we had routed the Taleban and al Qaeda from that country. Al Quaeda would then need to seek a new safe haven somewhere; a place that would give them access to more resources, perhaps. Now, switch to Iraq in your mind and examine the dynamics there at the time. Ruled by a despot, angry at the US, and still (officially) at war with the US. It also had resources, arms, and already proved to be a training place for terror operations. An agreement between al Quaeda and Hussein would have created a haven for terrorists who could then create havoc and diversions for Hussein. While there would be diplomatic setbacks for his regime (he was on the verge of getting sanctions lifted, not through cooperation but by using the indifference of many of our allies), there would be that "positive" of being a real thorn in our side. The best way to prevent a place from becoming a haven for terrorists is to deny them a regime which might, logically, grant them one.<BR/><BR/>Now, I know that not many agree with my reasoning on why I did not think Iraq was a bad idea (there are other reasons I supported it also) and I can accept their logic (when it is presented as a "positive" and not a "negative"). I just offer the above for consideration.<BR/><BR/> By the way, the reason that I asked Holly what war she was referring to was to determine whether it was the overall war or the fighting in Iraq. Technically, we are no longer at war with Iraq. The government has been changed, there are agreements between our two governments, and the fighting is with insurgents and terrorists who moved in to take advantage of the initial turmoil following the toppling of Hussein's regime.Douglashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09752593286034877538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2439647783347819362.post-46389341079100651892009-04-04T18:17:00.000-04:002009-04-04T18:17:00.000-04:00Holly said:"if war is a cultural calamity, how can...Holly said:<BR/><BR/>"if war is a cultural calamity, how can so many of the people today be so indifferent to this one?"<BR/><BR/>Perhaps because no one can connect "9-11" and "Iraq." Not even our government.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps because we have enough to worry about in our own country (unemployment at 25-year highs, foreclosures, financial implosion, poverty, homelessness, cancer, etc.), to care whether a nameless Iraqi can live a better life.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps because toppling a maniacal dictator with no ties to 9-11 did little, if anything, to assuage the fear of terrorism.MVDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12335170211448099206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2439647783347819362.post-62328799177109115142009-04-04T17:55:00.000-04:002009-04-04T17:55:00.000-04:00Let me try to explain in this way, Log... Here is ...Let me try to explain in this way, Log... Here is Holly's comment:<BR/><BR/><I>Which makes me wonder about this, if war is a cultural calamity, how can so many of the people today be so indifferent to this one? Certainly there has been plenty of fallout, in many areas and yet, I don't see the citizens pulling together to end or not end this conflict. It is almost like we/they have become desensitized to it. Almost like the fallout is individual instead of cultural.</I><BR/><BR/>The inference was that <B>we</B> (meaning U.S. citizens) are capable of ending the war. Your reply also only addressed the attitudes and concern (or lack of) of the American citizenry. Might I remind you that wars are not fought unilaterally? That we have been attacked (repeatedly and long before 9/11/01) and are under continued threat of attack. On the other hand, I offered a link to a relatively rare outrage at the belligerents ( the radical ideologues) or, at least, some of them. Did you read it? If this war is to end, and end successfully for us, the enemy must be willing to end all aggression. The US has always been willing to refrain from hostilities. It has nothing to do with a lack of body bags, proximity to soldiers, or the lack of a draft.Douglashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09752593286034877538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2439647783347819362.post-66261942342163515922009-04-04T10:19:00.000-04:002009-04-04T10:19:00.000-04:00Douglas: Please excuse our lack of sophistication...Douglas: Please excuse our lack of sophistication and analysis, however, we're unable to follow the line of reasoning which you suggested regarding the Logistician's response to Holly's comment. <BR/><BR/>Without spending an extensive amount of time going back to re-examine this issue, we recall Holly expressing some surprise at the relative indifference on the part of many in our country to "this war." You were, to the best of our recollection, unsure as to which war she was referring. She responded that it was the "war on terror." The Logistician responded and provided several reasons why there might have been relative indifference in our society.<BR/><BR/>We are not aware of any language that we put forth to suggest that "we are responsible for the war on terror." If you can point that language out, we can try to respond to your concerns. Totally apart from the textual issue, that is not a position which we have ever advanced in any discussion. We're not quite sure what this is about.Inspector Clouseauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09373932797333038561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2439647783347819362.post-86970376182461255562009-04-04T10:09:00.000-04:002009-04-04T10:09:00.000-04:00To all: We've been fascinated with all of this ta...To all: We've been fascinated with all of this talk about "war" and the technological and cultural advances flowing from it. <BR/><BR/>While we fully appreciate the cultural arguments advanced, we're not quite convinced of the significance of the military or war factor. <BR/><BR/>Since he has an engineering degree, the Logistician practiced intellectual property law during a significant component of his roughly 30 year career. For a somewhat smaller period of time, he was Special Counsel with one of the country's largest and oldest boutique patent firms, and another full-service firm with a large patent practice. <BR/><BR/>While he will readily admit that there were no major wars during the years of his practice, the vast, vast, vast majority of the inventions which passed through his firms had nothing to do with war or weapons. (His best friend was a patent prosecution specialist with a major defense firm, but even that activity was more related to space, guidance, and communications technology.)<BR/><BR/>We only mention this to note our hope that the "war" discussion does not take on a disproportionate significance, in the minds of our readers, in terms of its effect on advancing societies.<BR/><BR/>Just because people want to focus there attention on one subject and debate it extensively, does not necessarily mean that it is the dominant factor to be taken into consideration.<BR/><BR/>This article was about how America's ability or desire to make "things," and trade them, which affects jobs, the economy, and the way in which people here earn a living, had diminished, resulting in a level of dissatisfaction amongst its citizens. It was also about the replacement of "things" with some rather illusory financial instruments which most citizens do not understand.<BR/><BR/>The article further attempted to focus the readers attention on other factors to consider in the economic downturn here in America, and suggested that the factors had developed over a rather lengthy period of time.<BR/><BR/>For some reason, the responsive comments went off on a path about the cultural and technological advances attributable to "war."<BR/><BR/>Interesting. Maybe you folks feel that "war" is a more powerful force in society than we view it. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.Inspector Clouseauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09373932797333038561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2439647783347819362.post-22417607620867259472009-04-04T06:53:00.000-04:002009-04-04T06:53:00.000-04:00mvd, the reason more recent wars may have been omi...mvd, the reason more recent wars may have been omitted is probably the emotional factor. The more in the past, the less likely to have had a direct personal impact. We use historical perspectives to evaluate events. In most cases, that is the only way we can objectively view them. However, since you asked, great strides in trauma wound treatment were made during the Vietnam War. Yes, those strides could have been made without that war but they would have taken a much longer time to develop. War provides a concentration of trauma and a need to quickly adapt to that trauma. These advancements in treatment of violent trauma translated quickly into procedures adopted by hospitals around the world to handle victims of violent disasters. There were other areas, much in technology, that were affected. The Gulf Wars drove improvements in technology (the use of drones, laser and GPS guidance systems, anti-weaponry such as the Patriot Missile System) which have begun to translate into traffic control, crowd control, crime control, and so forth.<BR/><BR/>Log, your response to Holly (and Holly's comment) seems to indicate that we are responsible for the "War on Terror". That if we (meaning the US public) want it, we somehow have the power to stop it. If I am wrong about this, please let me know. If I am not, please see my response to Holly about what really needs to happen to have it come to an end and what it is really about in the first place.Douglashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09752593286034877538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2439647783347819362.post-87313930790151991242009-04-04T01:32:00.000-04:002009-04-04T01:32:00.000-04:00Out of curiosity, why was so much attention paid t...Out of curiosity, why was so much attention paid to the issue of war, and so little discussion about technology and the invention of things, other than the connection to war?Inspector Clouseauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09373932797333038561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2439647783347819362.post-49973236298179875992009-04-04T01:11:00.000-04:002009-04-04T01:11:00.000-04:00The History Channel has a new series, "Battles B.C...The History Channel has a new series, "Battles B.C." One of the shows is airing right this moment on the East Coast, and another follows at the top of the hour.Inspector Clouseauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09373932797333038561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2439647783347819362.post-50449148303591228522009-04-04T00:30:00.000-04:002009-04-04T00:30:00.000-04:00I was referring to tendency of certain people who ...I was referring to tendency of certain people who comment to assume that the Logistician or others within the "Institute," have taken or stated a position when they have not. I was referring to making assumptions about the original author's mindset when no indicators have been provided. Of course, the readers who comment are entitled to inject their views.<BR/><BR/>For example, if I were to say, "It is raining outside." Certain readers might reply, "You seem to think that rain is a good thing, and I don't."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2439647783347819362.post-32964893094086103232009-04-04T00:24:00.000-04:002009-04-04T00:24:00.000-04:00Ooops, forgot one Holly. 5. The relative lack of ...Ooops, forgot one Holly. 5. The relative lack of visual images of the dead streaming back here to be displayed on mass media outlets.Inspector Clouseauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09373932797333038561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2439647783347819362.post-58863273949344488492009-04-04T00:23:00.000-04:002009-04-04T00:23:00.000-04:00Holly:Although we do not claim to have our fingers...Holly:<BR/><BR/>Although we do not claim to have our fingers on the pulse of the American public, we offer the following 4 reasons for the current attitude, however that may be characterized, of Americans:<BR/>1. No attacks on American soil since 9/11;<BR/>2. The average American does not have a friend, relative, or neighbor serving in the effort;<BR/>3. We have a voluntary military force; and<BR/>4. The average American is not concerned about potentially being called into service, as was the case with the draft.<BR/><BR/>These factors theoretically contribute to the attitude.Inspector Clouseauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09373932797333038561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2439647783347819362.post-27809462354533125582009-04-03T23:21:00.000-04:002009-04-03T23:21:00.000-04:00In reading the comments, I see many which appear t...In reading the comments, I see many which appear to extol the virtues of war (while admitting to its heinous nature).<BR/><BR/>What I find laughable, however, is that the pro-war arguments have been made in a historical context ending around WWII.<BR/><BR/>Interestingly, not one of the so-called "hawks" has extolled the virtues of Korea, Vietnam, Iraq I, or Iraq II in their arguments. Why?<BR/><BR/>Yes, the American Revolution was a great thing. But it's 2009. Let's bring the argument into, at very least, the last 50 years.MVDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12335170211448099206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2439647783347819362.post-66380163629280173112009-04-03T22:36:00.000-04:002009-04-03T22:36:00.000-04:00Anonymous wrote: A lot of times, people reply to y...Anonymous wrote: A lot of times, people reply to your questions by inserting THEIR views into the question<BR/><BR/><BR/>but of course we insert our views. Why wouldn't we?Hollyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17685436243608973979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2439647783347819362.post-48200282781493279562009-04-03T22:23:00.000-04:002009-04-03T22:23:00.000-04:00Logistician: I read your blog frequently, but I d...Logistician: I read your blog frequently, but I do not like to comment. This time I have to comment on something which I am seeing with more frequency. Some people frequently comment on issues you raise and assume that you have some underlying motivation or position. I find that surprising since most of your questions are neutral statements, designed to get people to think about different ways to look at things, without any suggestion one way or the other. In fact, I am sometimes irritated with the theoretical way you approach issues, but I understand why you are doing so.<BR/><BR/>A lot of times, people reply to your questions by inserting THEIR views into the question. They should read your questions more closely. I think that there would be better discussions on your blog if there was less emotion expressed by the people leaving comments. No one wants to read snide, nasty comments. They can take their nastiness to some other blogs. It appears that you want to have all people feel that their opinions are valued and respected. Thanks for trying to set up a place like this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2439647783347819362.post-6992297698441581732009-04-03T21:40:00.000-04:002009-04-03T21:40:00.000-04:00Holly, I suspected as much. The problem is that it...Holly, I suspected as much. The problem is that it may not be a war on terror but a war against a radical ideology. Terror is the primary tactic being used by the proponents of the radical ideology. If we wage a war against a tactic, it will not be effective. There was a hopeful sign today in articles about the flogging of a young girl by the Taliban in the Swat region of Pakistan. If things like this can be brought out in the open so that people see what the ideology is really like, perhaps progress can be made.<BR/><BR/>Here's a link to Google News about the incident.<BR/><BR/>http://news.google.com/news?pz=1&cf=all&ncl=1324678485Douglashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09752593286034877538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2439647783347819362.post-26211579478287724892009-04-03T21:26:00.000-04:002009-04-03T21:26:00.000-04:00My apologies for not being clear Douglas. I am ref...My apologies for not being clear Douglas. <BR/><BR/>I am referring to the "War on Terror". <BR/><BR/>there *are* people who care but many do not and it bothers me.Hollyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17685436243608973979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2439647783347819362.post-68747402060133959462009-04-03T19:39:00.000-04:002009-04-03T19:39:00.000-04:00Holly, what particular war are you referring to? I...Holly, what particular war are you referring to? I am assuming here that you are referring to some war when you say "this one."Douglashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09752593286034877538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2439647783347819362.post-28743686643273367832009-04-03T19:31:00.000-04:002009-04-03T19:31:00.000-04:00"couldn't we have theoretically made those same ad..."couldn't we have theoretically made those same advances by responding to the injuries received by auto and industrial accident victims?"<BR/><BR/>Perhaps, but history may have gone in a different direction also, there is no way to tell now (if you look at it from a historical point of view, and really..is there any other way to look at it?). War is *usually* a cultural catastrophe, in that many are deeply affected rather than an individual catastrophe, in which a few individuals are deeply affected (as in auto and industrial accidents), with other that are touched extending sympathy and sometimes support during that initial crisis period. <BR/><BR/>Which makes me wonder about this, if war is a cultural calamity, how can so many of the people today be so indifferent to this one? Certainly there has been plenty of fallout, in many areas and yet, I don't see the citizens pulling together to end or not end this conflict. It is almost like we/they have become desensitized to it. Almost like the fallout is individual instead of cultural. <BR/><BR/>Again, this does not mean that war is a good thing, especially overall.Hollyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17685436243608973979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2439647783347819362.post-59938752810450745252009-04-03T17:38:00.000-04:002009-04-03T17:38:00.000-04:00Better to ask "Have there been any peaceful merger...Better to ask "Have there been any peaceful mergers of cultures?"Douglashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09752593286034877538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2439647783347819362.post-84152997074611140392009-04-03T17:35:00.000-04:002009-04-03T17:35:00.000-04:00"Violence" is arguably a characterization of a col..."Violence" is arguably a characterization of a collection of actions which might be distinguished from "force." Can there be a "peaceful" or "negotiated " merger of countries or cultures, like the annexation of territories or the merger of corporate entities? Is violence a necessary ingredient?<BR/><BR/>Have there been any occupations in history where not a single shot has been fired?Inspector Clouseauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09373932797333038561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2439647783347819362.post-4094793059289050602009-04-03T17:15:00.000-04:002009-04-03T17:15:00.000-04:00The original post read: "8. When you treat any seg...The original post read: "8. When you treat any segment of society unfairly, for whatever reason, they become less motivated, and less capable, to work in concert with you to pursue long-term societal interests." <BR/><BR/>Holly commented:<BR/>"...or they become used to it and are content with doing less. Some of the individuals would be this way no matter how they were treated...UNLESS they had to make some difficult decisions about survival."<BR/><BR/>This is an interesting way to characterize it which may desire some further thought. However, doesn't someone getting used to something also fall within the definition of motivation, or lack of it?<BR/><BR/>And when you use the word "survival," would you suggest that any subjugated people use "whatever means necessary" to remove the yoke?Inspector Clouseauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09373932797333038561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2439647783347819362.post-18170758362653968552009-04-03T16:43:00.000-04:002009-04-03T16:43:00.000-04:00Log, you are looking at war from, in my opinion, t...Log, you are looking at war from, in my opinion, the wrong perspective. You are viewing it only as the destructive force that it is, as a victim of war might see it. Step outside of the box. There is no one person who decides which cultures are good or bad, which should live or perish. Masses of people do that and, most often, they do this through wars. They also do it in attempts at genocide. I like to use the American Revolution as an illustration of how wars can be agents for positive change. Our revolution against the British Crown helped alter the perception of how nations should be governed, about royalty, about the efficacy of democratic governance. Both you and rodak suggested that I am only looking at the past and perhaps we have evolved beyond the need for war. Perhaps <B>we</B> have but not all the world has. There are still people who believe in "strongman rule", still people who think that others must be bent to the will of others for the "good of all." Look at what is happening in Sudan, for example. Look at North Korea. Listen to Iran's Ahmadinejad's threats against Israel. Look at what recently happened in Georgia (the old Soviet state). <BR/><BR/>Finally, your final proposition suggests that you see the US as a threat to the world, a threat to peace and stability. We do not do those things and we don't even contemplate them in any serious manner. I find the proposition beyond silly.Douglashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09752593286034877538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2439647783347819362.post-18329480340648915702009-04-03T16:23:00.000-04:002009-04-03T16:23:00.000-04:00benevolent empire builderNow there's a contradicti...<EM>benevolent empire builder</EM><BR/><BR/>Now there's a contradiction in terms if I ever saw one! <BR/>To answer your question directly: No! I have no desire to be a citizen of McWorld.Rodakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00077919085157653816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2439647783347819362.post-52555277903360627702009-04-03T15:52:00.001-04:002009-04-03T15:52:00.001-04:00Here's one for you. The US has extensive and very ...Here's one for you. <BR/><BR/>The US has extensive and very sophisticated military capabilities. Should we, as a benevolent empire builder, and desirous of spreading our culture and values, go into friendly countries, take Mexico and Canada for example, and simply take them over without firing one single shot or killing one single citizen, and then applaud our action as a positive one?Inspector Clouseauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09373932797333038561noreply@blogger.com