Obsidian Wings

Let's Go To War Open Thread

by wj

In today's Washington Post:
War With Iran Is Probably Our Best Option.


The author, Joshua Muravchik, might be the poster child for the movement from the far left to the far right. Going from National Chairman of the Young People's Socialist League in the late 1960s and early 1970s to a board member for the American Enterprise Institute and trustee of Freedom House today.


I have to wonder why, given how well the war in Iraq that he championed worked out, he gets much of a hearing on how wonderful another war in the Middle East would be.

Terry Pratchett goes forth

by Doctor Science

Dammit. Terry Pratchett, one of the greatest writers of my lifetime, just died. Age 66, of early-onset Alzheimer's.

By baalakavii, based on the announcement on Pratchett's twitter account:

AT LAST, SIR TERRY, WE MUST WALK TOGETHER.

— Terry Pratchett (@terryandrob) March 12, 2015

Terry took Death's arm and followed him through the doors and on to the black desert under the endless night.

— Terry Pratchett (@terryandrob) March 12, 2015

The End.

— Terry Pratchett (@terryandrob) March 12, 2015

If Nobel Prizes for Literature were actually awarded for the most outstanding work in an ideal direction, and if "ideal direction" meant works of ideas, world-building, and morality, Terry Pratchett would have been a leading contender (Ursula LeGuin would be another). But that's not how the Nobels are really chosen.

pTerry* wrote fantasy -- wacky fantasy, with jokes and magic and footnotes and all mod cons -- but his central concerns were always philosophical: how should we live, both as individuals and socially? how is the universe constructed? how should we die? and what is the green wobbly bit, really?** Everything he wrote was Ha Ha Only Serious***.
I'm trying to think what I'd say to people who've never read Pratchett and are wondering where to start. Of the non-Discworld books, Good Omens is the clear choice, though I think Nation is also frakkin' brilliant. In non-Discworld for younger readers, I really love The Bromeliad, which covers most of pTerry's favorite themes in miniature, as it were.

Most of pTerry's writing was set on Discworld:

which is flat and rides on the back of four giant elephants who stand on the shell of the enormous star turtle Great A'Tuin, and which is bounded by a waterfall that cascades endlessly into space.

Scientists have calculated that the chance of anything so patently absurd actually existing are millions to one. But magicians have calculated that million-to-one chances crop up nine times out of ten.****

The Discworld books don't form a single linear narrative; there's a reading order guide:

but I kind of disagree about the "starter novels". I find that Wyrd Sisters is the best single "starter", because it's got enough Hamlet & Macbeth in it to orient people who are new to the series -- and the witches are in fine form, much better than in Equal Rites. I would give someone Guards, Guards! next, then Mort -- though there's a lot to be said for writing order, which moves you around between storylines to fill up the world.

I think I'll be re-reading some of the Death novels over the next week -- Reaper Man seems like a particularly fitting choice.

In the Ramtops village where they dance the real Morris dance, for example, they believe that no-one is finally dead until the ripples they cause in the world die away -- until the clock he wound up winds down, until the wine she made has finished its ferment, until the crop they planted is harvested. The span of someone's life, they say, is only the core of their actual existence.

 

In the village in the Ramtops where they understand what the Morris dance is all about, they dance it just once, at dawn, on the first day of spring. They don't dance it after that, all through the summer. After all, what would be the point? What use would it be?

But on a certain day when the nights are drawing in, the dancers leave work early and take, from attics and cupboards, the other costume, the black one, and the other bells. And they go by separate ways to a valley among the leafless trees. They don't speak. There is no music. It's very hard to imagine what kind there could be.

The bells don't ring. They're made of octiron, a magic metal. But they're not, precisely, silent bells. Silence is merely the absence of noise. They make the opposite of noise, a sort of heavily textured silence.

And in the cold afternoon, as the light drains from the sky, among the frosty leaves and in the damp air, they dance the other Morris. Because of the balance of things.

You've got to dance both, they say. Otherwise you can't dance either.

Noli Timere Messorum.*****

---

* A nickname that started on Usenet after Pyramids was published. After Good Omens came out, pTerry's friend and collaborator Neil Gaiman was often called gNeil.

** Gall bladder or immortal soul? YOU BE THE JUDGE.

*** "For further enlightenment on this subject, consult any Zen master" -- that would be the old guy with the broom.

**** quote from Mort.

***** The motto on Sir Terry's Coat of Arms: Don't Fear the Reaper.

an anecdote...

by russell

A week or so ago, I went to my niece's son's 4th birthday party.  He's a great kid, anything he thinks or feels immediately translates into enthusiastic chatter and facial expressions and some kind of 4-year-old interpretive gymnastics.

I think the term of art is "expressive".

When I go to my niece's, I always hang out for a while with my ex-brother-in-law.  He and his second wife are retired, and travel a lot.  There was some bad blood when the divorce happened, but I've known the man since I was, like, six years old - over 50 years - so when I see him I always ask him where he's been and what they've been up to.

He and wife #2 like the river cruises, they're easy and they go fun places and once you're on board you really don't have to worry about a whole lot, everything is kind of taken care of.  On their most recent trip they were in Germany, traveling the Rhine.

Which brings me (finally) to my anecdote.

One evening during their trip, ex-bro-in-law developed a cough.  Nothing big at first, but then it kind of got worse, and he had difficulty sleeping.  Next day he just sort of stayed in the cabin, and then decided he need to see a doctor.

The concierge or whatever it's called on the boat packed him off to a local hospital with his wife and one of the crew from the boat.

Into the ER, they took vitals, a nurse checked him over.  Called in the doctor, the doctor didn't like the sound of his chest, ordered an X-ray.

Ex-bro-in-law was, at this point, getting kind of anxious, because the first thing they told him when he arrived at the ER was no Medicare, no US insurance of any kind public or private.  Cash or credit card.

Gulp!  He's hearing the sound of cash registers going "kaching", auf Deutsch.  But what are you going to do?

Long story short, he was fine, they released him after a couple of hours.  On his way out they hit him with the bill.

140 Euros.  At the time, maybe $180.

And, of course, upon hearing this, I asked what I always ask when this topic comes up.

WTF is wrong with us?  Why can't we have something remotely approaching that?

Are we just insane?

Does anyone have, really and truly, an explanation for why health care is so insanely expensive here?

Have at it.

Obama's Selma speech

by liberal japonicus

Stunning. Discuss.

If Not Hilary, Who?

by wj

I think it more likely than not that Hilary Clinton's candidacy will survive this latest contremps over her using a private e-mail account during her tenure as Secretary of State. (Unless evidence turns up of a significant security breach. At that point, all bets are off.) There's just too much history of the Clinton campaign team being able to work around things that would have sunk most politician's candidacy.

But suppose, for the sake of discussion, that her campaign did implode. Who would be the alternatives for the Democrats? I keep reading about how the Democrats lack a "bench" of up and coming politicians, who would be possibilities. But that seems like simple failure to look around. So who's looking possible?

If the Democratic voters want to emulate the Republicans' quest for ideological purity, Elizabeth Warren is the obvious choice. Except for the little detail that she doesn't seem interested at this point. So mayne the far left could go with Bernie Sanders. He's almost certainly not electable (unless the Republicans go even more extreme than I expect), but ....

If they just want a safe, dull, choice, I suppose they could go with Joe Biden. I can't really see that happening. But it might be an option, to the extent that the Democrats have an "establishment wing." Although, for those wanting that kind of candidate, Martin O'Malley (until recently Governor of Maryland) would seem like a better option.

But if the Democratic voters' priority is to maximize their chances of hanging on to the Presidency, the obvious choice is Jim Webb. The fact that he was a marine officer, not to mention Asst. Secretary of Defense under Ronald Reagan, makes is hard to characterize him as a flaming liberal. Not that it wouldn't be tried, of course. But it wouldn't be likely to convince independent voters of it. Simply put, it seems like he would be more electable than the alternatives.

So who else could be plausible?** And what else are the pluses and minuses of these possibilities?

** The Democrats have the usual run of fringe candidates, who nobody besides themselves takes seriously. No need to bother with them, even if some have announced.

Whither Iran

by wj
I don't know when the talks with Iran over nuclear weapons will conclude. Maybe they finish by the latest deadline. Maybe they go thru some more extensions. But eventually they will end. And there are only a few ways that they can end. In rough order of probability (as I see it):

• They reach an agreement. At that point, we see a lot more inspections in Iran. And the sanctions get rolled back. (Except for the ones legislated by the US Congress. Those may get "suspended," but don't actually get repealed until 2022.) Iran's economy starts to recover, and it starts to become more integrated into global society again. It also evolves in a generally Western direction -- even though it is a theocracy, it rapidly becomes less religiously conservative than the nominally non-theocratic Saudis.
  Oh yes, and American conservatives go into utter hysterics.
• The talks break down, and everybody else feels that it is America's fault. At that point, the sanctions regime start to collapse. America and Israel, possibly the Arab states, and maybe Pakistan maintain them -- but the rest of the world removes them. Iran becomes less isolated, but still feels particularly unhappy with the US. (And maybe we find out if Ayatollah Khamenei was serious when he proclaimed nuclear weapons were "un-Islamic."
• While the talks are still going on, someone (i.e. Israel) launches a military strike on (some of) Irans nuclear facilities. At that point the talks break down. And the sanctions regime collapses (even faster than the previous scenario). And, "un-Islamic" or no, Iran starts a crash program to build nuclear weapons -- and succeeds relatively quickly. (While they are doing that, the Saudis also launch a crash program to do so.)
• The talks break down, and the other parties feel that it is Iran's fault. The sanctions generally continue (albeit with some erosion). And the Iranian government successfully spins this at home as everyone else's fault, thus bolstering its strength and allowing it to continue in spite of the economic pain.
  And American conservatives start demanding military action. Whether they get it depends on how the next couple of elections go. But if they do, the result makes the Iraq War look like a dizzying success.

Anybody see a fifth possible outcome?

Coming soon!

by liberal japonicus

Let me give a welcome to regular commentor wj, who will take up the gauntlet and do whatever one does with gauntlets. He'll probably be taking over the weekend open thread. Anyone else interested? Write the kitty!

Speeding tickets in Finland and Ferguson

by Doctor Science

This article about Finnish traffic tickets has been viral on tumblr in the last few days:

Finland's speeding fines are linked to income, with penalties calculated on daily earnings, meaning high earners get hit with bigger penalties for breaking the law. So, when businessman Reima Kuisla was caught doing 103km/h (64mph) in an area where the speed limit is 80km/h (50mph), authorities turned to his 2013 tax return, the Iltalehti newspaper reports. He earned 6.5m euros [$7.2M] that year, so was told to hand over 54,000 euros [almost $60K]. The scale of the fine hasn't gone down well with Mr Kuisla. "Ten years ago I wouldn't have believed that I would seriously consider moving abroad," he says on his Facebook page. "Finland is impossible to live in for certain kinds of people who have high incomes and wealth."

Finnish tumblr user Iokheiaira explains further:

Sure, an EUR 54K fine seems high, but consider that for truly egregious speeding, if you’re earning 2100 euros/month after taxes [$2315, or about $28K/year, about the median US individual income] and have no dependents, you might get slapped with a fine to the tune of 360 euros [about $400] (according to the Finnish Police’s Sakkolaskuri in Finnish), which is about 17% of your total income that month, and while doable, will not be fun at all.

But that 360 euros for Mr. Kuisla? Petty cash. He might think it money well-spent for a fun joyride, and go on speeding with a smile.

Incidentally - charging larger fines from richer people probably helps the cops to go after all people equally, instead on focusing on poor people less likely to make a big fuss or throw their weight around. Finnish traffic cops are unfortunately underfunded and overworked anyway - and the money from the fines goes directly to the State treasury, not to the police’s own budget or the local budget (which I think helps to prevent situations like Ferguson, USA, where fines are used as a form of additional taxation/extortion).

Iokheiaira is referring, of course, to the fact that in Ferguson the municipal court was out to make money for the city, and its decisions were motivated by this goal versus public safety and that this burden falls disproportionately on the poor, who can afford it least.

Americans of all political parties agree that separating revenue generation from law enforcement is really important. But is it important enough that Republicans will be willing to raise taxes to make up for lost revenue from fines?

Or, if raising taxes is impossible, how about copying the Finnish model? -- where fines can be used for revenue, but not in any way that connects the enforcer with the money. And what about also making fines a flat percentage of income? -- which is still harder on the poor than the rich, because 10% of a month's income when you're poor is much more difficult and painful than 10% when you're rich. But at least it's not as regressive as a flat fee.

Iokheiaira reports that in Finland:

While people can and do argue about the finer points of proportionate fines - one of Mr. Kuisla’s arguments was that the lines drawn are somewhat arbitrary, and if he’d driven a mere 5 km per hour slower, the fine would’ve been only a fraction of what it was… people in general consider that a) if you play by the rules, you don’t need to pay fines and b) it’s always nice to see that rich people are not above the law, after all.

I wonder if that last point isn't the real sticking point in the US -- lots of Americans admire people who "aren't afraid to break a few rules", who "are willing to go outside the law to do what they have to." Compared to Scandinavians, I don't know if Americans in general really do like seeing rich people obey the laws the rest of us do -- or if Americans prefer to aspire to scofflaw wealth.

Toad of Toad Hall, the poster boy for scofflaw wealth. Like most people, Toad thought he was a much better driver than average. The trouble with over-confident rich people is that, as with Toad, they're likely to leave a lot of collateral damage.

Leonard Nimoy, Spock, and fandom

by Doctor Science

A lot of people have talked very movingly in the past few days about how inspirational Leonard Nimoy and the character of Spock were in their lives. For me, Spock is a culture-hero on the level of Moses or indeed Abraham. My chosen subculture is transformative media/SF fandom; media fandom began with Star Trek -- and Star Trek fandom began with Spock.

One to Beam Up, by feredir. Yeah, I've been crying.

Speechifying with the Netanyahu!

by Ugh

Well, today's the day of the big speech.  10:45am Eastern I believe.  Do I bring popcorn?

As much as I find the U.S.-Israel relationship mystifying, peculiar, and ultimately a large net loss to the United States (IMHO), and as much as I find Netanyahu infuriating generally and his interference in U.S. politics even more infuriating particularly, I and the United States government really don't have standing to complain about a foreign government/leader interfering in the United States' internal affairs and politics.  

It's pretty much the SOP for U.S. foreign policy and reminds me of Col. Nathan R. Jessup's line about danger "Is there another kind?"  So, let's see how this goes.  There is some boycotting going on, the Vice President is off dealing with a much more important matters in Guatemala and about 50 (?) Democrats are skipping it.  And in two weeks the American public will probably be asking "Netanya who?"  Good times!

My cynical self says that Netanyahu potentially turning U.S. relations with Israel into a partisan issue might be a good thing for the United States.  Israel?  Not so much, ISTM.