Somalia has been getting food aid almost continuously since 1991. During the same period, there has been non-stop fighting between rival warlords and the provisional government. Despite receiving massive amounts of food, Somalia is no better off than it was 1991.
The World Food Program, which distributes most of the food aid in Somalia, warns that a greater number of Somalis face starvation if food aid is not increased. The estimates that form the basis of this claim come from UNICEF and other aid organizations. So, the people that get paid to provide famine relief are also the ones determining if there is a famine or not. This is called a "conflict of interest."
The rash of pirate attacks in Somalia doesn't jive with the famine claim. If they're starving, why are they spending money on weapons to hijack ships?
The food aid that is being sent to Somalia has in all probability prolonged the suffering and chaos in that nation. Warlords fight over the food aid and sell it on the black market to buy arms. For a detailed analysis of this, read The Road to Hell by Michael Maren.
Not only does the food aid fuel the chaos of war, but it also puts local producers out of business by driving down prices. The only benefactors from the ensuing chaos are the warlords and pirates.
More broadly, all the major recipients of foreign aid (a large proportion of which comes from the US) are disaster areas. Liberia, Somalia, the former Zaire, Sudan- billions of dollars were poured into these places and they are all engulfed in anarchy and bloodshed.
The first rule of helping is "do no harm."
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Giving an expired equine a few more hits
As Dubya is on his way out and mud begins flying at him from all directions, I thought I might reflect on the handful of decent ideas he had.
1) Guest Worker Program
This is the only sensible solution to illegal immigration; that is to legalize it. They're going to keep coming anyway. Building a wall will not do anything.
2) Moon Base
I think we can all agree this would be pretty cool. The Chinese put a man in space? That's nice. We should send them an invitation to our swimming pool . . . . . . . ON THE MOON!
3) Great wacky quotes
OK, not so great of a president, but you have to admit he made you laugh. It is a rare occassion in history when a whole industry springs up to mock one person.
"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully."
-George W. Bush
And my own analysis of his biggest blunders:
1) Tax cuts & spending increases
Cut revenue and increase spending? Is this what they taught you at Harvard Business School, George?2) Picking Michael Brown to head FEMA
3) Missile Defense
$100 billion since Reagan and it still doesn't work? Christ, we could have built a Moon Base with that. Or at least a functional lightsaber.
5) Iraq War.
Good job getting rid of Saddam. Too bad all those people are dead.
I sorta feel sorry for this guy.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Let's Reform Spelling
I'm going to be lazy and just copy and paste this from this site.
WHY ENGLISH SPELLING SHOULD BE UPDATED.
-English spelling is too difficult for most people.
-Even after 11 years at school barely half of all English speakers become confident spellers.
-Italian children can spell accurately after just 2 years at school.
-Italy has only half as many identified dyslexics as England.
-Around 7 million British adults and 40 million US adults are functionally illiterate.
-English speaking adults always come near the bottom in international studies on literacy.
-In 1992 Dr. Lamb reported on the poor spelling standards of university students in the UK.
-In 1998 Bernard Richards reported on the poor spelling of many students at Oxford.
-In all UK schools there are some teachers who regularly make spelling mistakes on school reports.
OK, back to me. As I see it, there are basically five arguments for retaining the current spelling system:
1) the aesthetic argument (the extra letters make the words look nicer)
2) the etymological argument (the spelling makes it easier to identify the word's origin)
3) the discipline argument (pointless drudgery is good for children)
4) the asshole argument (I can spell and you can't- hahaha!)
5) the chaos argument (changing the spelling system would just cause more confusion)
Argument #1 is way subjective. Spellings have changed many times over the years. At what point in history did the words acquire just the right number of extra letters? Even if it is more beautiful, is it worth the enormous effort required to teach it?
Argument #2 is even flimsier. Only linguists and other specialists care about the origin of words. How many English speakers are aware that "goodbye" is a corruption of "God be with ye"? In many cases, the current spelling distorts the root word even more. If the word "dungeon" was spelled "dunjin" would it be easier or harder to tell that the word originiates from the Middle French word donjon?
Argument #3 doesn't hold up very well either. Isn't the purpose of education to teach children how to think? But in order to spell properly, logic and consistency must be tossed aside.
Argument #4 is the domain of people who derive a living from the current system: English teachers, spellcheck software companies, etc. They oppose reform because it threatens their livelihood, which is understandable, but is that really a good reason to keep things as they are?
Argument #5 might hold water if not for the fact that we now have movable type. Printing books is not really that big a hassle these days, and in any case, books wear out and have to be reprinted anyway. Given the already high rates of illiteracy, I fail to see how it is possible to add to the confusion. 40 million American adults can't read a newspaper? Sounds like plenty of people are confused already.
If you're still not convinced, here are some more reasons to simplify spelling:
-Simplified spelling would greatly reduce illiteracy, which in turn would lower crime and unemployment.
-A simple spelling system would free up more time to teach other subjects in school.
- Simplifying English spelling would make it easier to teach as a foreign language. More people speaking English strengthens the status of English as a world language. English is in an excellent position to be a universal language: it has a large number of native speakers, a wealth of literature and other media, simpler grammar than many other languages, and it uses the latin alphabet, the world's most widespread writing system.
b as in "bug" ch as in "chin" d as in "dim" f as in "fig" g as in "gum"
h as in "hen" j as in "jump" k as in "kin" l as in "long" m as in "man"
n as in "not" p as in "pen" r as in "red" s as in "sit" t as in "tan"
th as in "thin" v as in "van" w as in "win" y as in "yes" z as in "zen"
plus a couple new ones:
dh is new; thus "them" would be written as "dhem"
kw replaces q in words like "quit" and "enquire" to get "kwit" and "enkwier"
zh so "pleasure" becomes "plezher"
ks replaces x in words like "hex" to get "heks"
OK, in many plurals and verb forms that end in "s", the actual sound is "z". For example, "trees" sounds like "treez". To keep things simple, plurals and verbs formed by adding "s" will still take "s" even if the sound is actually "z." For the same reason, past tenses formed by "-ed" will stay the same.
The unstressed vowel will not been written unless is comes at the beginning of a word:
associate -----> usoaseeait (verb), usoaseeit (noun)
people -------> peepl
cradle--------> kraidl
Maiking dhu Inglish laingwij eezeeyer tue lern dus not weeken it; it strengthens it.
Join dhu rebelyin!
*Last edited on 22-11-2008 to add "aw", "ow", and "-ed" rule.
WHY ENGLISH SPELLING SHOULD BE UPDATED.
-English spelling is too difficult for most people.
-Even after 11 years at school barely half of all English speakers become confident spellers.
-Italian children can spell accurately after just 2 years at school.
-Italy has only half as many identified dyslexics as England.
-Around 7 million British adults and 40 million US adults are functionally illiterate.
-English speaking adults always come near the bottom in international studies on literacy.
-In 1992 Dr. Lamb reported on the poor spelling standards of university students in the UK.
-In 1998 Bernard Richards reported on the poor spelling of many students at Oxford.
-In all UK schools there are some teachers who regularly make spelling mistakes on school reports.
OK, back to me. As I see it, there are basically five arguments for retaining the current spelling system:
1) the aesthetic argument (the extra letters make the words look nicer)
2) the etymological argument (the spelling makes it easier to identify the word's origin)
3) the discipline argument (pointless drudgery is good for children)
4) the asshole argument (I can spell and you can't- hahaha!)
5) the chaos argument (changing the spelling system would just cause more confusion)
Argument #1 is way subjective. Spellings have changed many times over the years. At what point in history did the words acquire just the right number of extra letters? Even if it is more beautiful, is it worth the enormous effort required to teach it?
Argument #2 is even flimsier. Only linguists and other specialists care about the origin of words. How many English speakers are aware that "goodbye" is a corruption of "God be with ye"? In many cases, the current spelling distorts the root word even more. If the word "dungeon" was spelled "dunjin" would it be easier or harder to tell that the word originiates from the Middle French word donjon?
Argument #3 doesn't hold up very well either. Isn't the purpose of education to teach children how to think? But in order to spell properly, logic and consistency must be tossed aside.
Argument #4 is the domain of people who derive a living from the current system: English teachers, spellcheck software companies, etc. They oppose reform because it threatens their livelihood, which is understandable, but is that really a good reason to keep things as they are?
Argument #5 might hold water if not for the fact that we now have movable type. Printing books is not really that big a hassle these days, and in any case, books wear out and have to be reprinted anyway. Given the already high rates of illiteracy, I fail to see how it is possible to add to the confusion. 40 million American adults can't read a newspaper? Sounds like plenty of people are confused already.
If you're still not convinced, here are some more reasons to simplify spelling:
-Simplified spelling would greatly reduce illiteracy, which in turn would lower crime and unemployment.
-A simple spelling system would free up more time to teach other subjects in school.
- Simplifying English spelling would make it easier to teach as a foreign language. More people speaking English strengthens the status of English as a world language. English is in an excellent position to be a universal language: it has a large number of native speakers, a wealth of literature and other media, simpler grammar than many other languages, and it uses the latin alphabet, the world's most widespread writing system.
The only other minor obstacle I can think of for spelling reform is orthography. Any choice for orthography is arbitrary so, I will choose US English as my basis. It is worth noting that the US and UK use different spelling for many words already, even when they are pronounced alike (e.g. "center" and "centre") so there are already two main standards for English spelling.
My New Spelling System
The vowels:
a as in "hat" ai as in "pain" ar as in "farm" aw as in "law"
e as in "get" ee as in "bee"
eer as in "beer" er as in "herd"
i as in "lip" ie as in "pie"
ier is new; thus "fire" would be written as "fier"
o as in "dog" oa as in "boat" oi as in "oil" oo as in "book"
oar as in "boar" ow as in "how"
u as in "run" ue as in "glue"
The consonants:
b as in "bug" ch as in "chin" d as in "dim" f as in "fig" g as in "gum"
h as in "hen" j as in "jump" k as in "kin" l as in "long" m as in "man"
n as in "not" p as in "pen" r as in "red" s as in "sit" t as in "tan"
th as in "thin" v as in "van" w as in "win" y as in "yes" z as in "zen"
plus a couple new ones:
dh is new; thus "them" would be written as "dhem"
kw replaces q in words like "quit" and "enquire" to get "kwit" and "enkwier"
zh so "pleasure" becomes "plezher"
ks replaces x in words like "hex" to get "heks"
OK, in many plurals and verb forms that end in "s", the actual sound is "z". For example, "trees" sounds like "treez". To keep things simple, plurals and verbs formed by adding "s" will still take "s" even if the sound is actually "z." For the same reason, past tenses formed by "-ed" will stay the same.
The unstressed vowel will not been written unless is comes at the beginning of a word:
associate -----> usoaseeait (verb), usoaseeit (noun)
people -------> peepl
cradle--------> kraidl
Maiking dhu Inglish laingwij eezeeyer tue lern dus not weeken it; it strengthens it.
Join dhu rebelyin!
*Last edited on 22-11-2008 to add "aw", "ow", and "-ed" rule.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Special Bonus Post: My Absentee Ballot
I got my absentee ballot the other day and I noticed something odd. There's a picture of an eagle next to the Republican oval and a picture of what appears to be a chicken next to the Democrat oval. Guess the folks on the ballot procurement committee decided to have some fun.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Relax, the CIA is not all powerful
When most of the people think of the CIA, they imagine powerful, secretive bureaucrats, elite commandos, and high-tech equipment. They can go anywhere and do anything; they are unstoppable. These ideas are reinforced by popular entertainment. However, a strong case can be made that the agency is hilariously inept.
Great CIA blunders, in no particular order:
#1: They blew up the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade by mistake. The reason? Their maps were out of date.
"There were three basic failures. First, the technique used to locate the intended target – the headquarters of the Yugoslav Federal Directorate for Supply and Procurement (FDSP) – was severely flawed. Second, none of the military or intelligence databases used to validate targets contained the correct location of the Chinese Embassy. Third, nowhere in the target review process was either of the first two mistakes detected."
"U.S. officials who had served in Belgrade were aware that the Chinese Embassy had moved sometime in 1996. The information, however, was not entered into the data bases we rely on for our targeting and mapping."
Source
"Of course, everything is overshadowed, as we expect, by this one very, very bad mistake."
-NATO spokesman Jamie Shea
#2: They tried and failed numerous times to assassinate Fidel Castro. Exploding cigars? Did they really think that would work?
"If surviving assassination were an Olympic event, I would win the gold medal." -Fidel Castro
#3: Bay of Pigs.
#4: Failed to predict Iranian Revolution- even when crowds were chanting "Down with the Shah!" and "Death to America!"
#5 Gave money and weapons to Pakistan's ISI, which in turn gave money to groups like Al-Qaida.
#6 Some guy shot a bunch of CIA employees outside the entrance to CIA headquarters.
Honorable mention: During a meeting to plot the overthrow of the Sandanista regime, former CIA director William Casey mangled the name of Nicaragua, saying something like "Nicawawa." This prompted someone to exclaim "You can't overthrow the government of a country whose name you can't pronounce!"
The standard retort to these incidents is to say that the CIA's failures are public while their successes remain secret. This is not true either. The CIA has managed to overthrow and handful of governments in poor, unstable countries (Guatemala & Chile). How much expertise is required to do that?
Since the CIA is the organization responsible for monitoring the activities of foreign governments, you'd think that they'd have a lot of people who can speak more than one language. However:
"In 1984, President Reagan's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board found that only 20 percent of the CIA officers in the Mexico City station had even a working knowledge of Spanish."
Source
OK, out of date, but I imagine the situation has not changed much.
I'll conclude by paraphrasing Lewis Black. They should just put me in charge of the CIA, because I can read Newsweek and guess as well as anyone else.
Great CIA blunders, in no particular order:
#1: They blew up the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade by mistake. The reason? Their maps were out of date.
"There were three basic failures. First, the technique used to locate the intended target – the headquarters of the Yugoslav Federal Directorate for Supply and Procurement (FDSP) – was severely flawed. Second, none of the military or intelligence databases used to validate targets contained the correct location of the Chinese Embassy. Third, nowhere in the target review process was either of the first two mistakes detected."
"U.S. officials who had served in Belgrade were aware that the Chinese Embassy had moved sometime in 1996. The information, however, was not entered into the data bases we rely on for our targeting and mapping."
Source
"Of course, everything is overshadowed, as we expect, by this one very, very bad mistake."
-NATO spokesman Jamie Shea
#2: They tried and failed numerous times to assassinate Fidel Castro. Exploding cigars? Did they really think that would work?
"If surviving assassination were an Olympic event, I would win the gold medal." -Fidel Castro
#3: Bay of Pigs.
#4: Failed to predict Iranian Revolution- even when crowds were chanting "Down with the Shah!" and "Death to America!"
#5 Gave money and weapons to Pakistan's ISI, which in turn gave money to groups like Al-Qaida.
#6 Some guy shot a bunch of CIA employees outside the entrance to CIA headquarters.
Honorable mention: During a meeting to plot the overthrow of the Sandanista regime, former CIA director William Casey mangled the name of Nicaragua, saying something like "Nicawawa." This prompted someone to exclaim "You can't overthrow the government of a country whose name you can't pronounce!"
The standard retort to these incidents is to say that the CIA's failures are public while their successes remain secret. This is not true either. The CIA has managed to overthrow and handful of governments in poor, unstable countries (Guatemala & Chile). How much expertise is required to do that?
Since the CIA is the organization responsible for monitoring the activities of foreign governments, you'd think that they'd have a lot of people who can speak more than one language. However:
"In 1984, President Reagan's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board found that only 20 percent of the CIA officers in the Mexico City station had even a working knowledge of Spanish."
Source
OK, out of date, but I imagine the situation has not changed much.
I'll conclude by paraphrasing Lewis Black. They should just put me in charge of the CIA, because I can read Newsweek and guess as well as anyone else.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Outcomes of Some Wars
Today I thought I'd give a brief summary of the results of some of the wars the US has been involved in since 1945. The format was inspired by the table in William Easterly's book.
Korean War
Main Effects: 2.5 million dead; war never officially ends; North Korea goes on to become the world's most abominable police state; South Korea turns out well.
Upshot for the US: Hyundai cars & Samsung phones
Vietnam War
Main Effects: about 5 million dead; communists win anyway; Soviet Union goes down without a fight 15 years later; China abandons most of Communism's economic policies; Vietnam still one of the world's poorest & least free countries.
Upshot for the US: Apocalypse Now and Full Metal Jacket are both great movies.
First Iraq War
Main Effects: about 50,000 dead (figure is disputed); Saddam's regime left more or less intact; Shia uprising ruthlessly suppressed.
Upshot for the US: Americans get to feel good about winning a war again; cheaper gasoline for a few more years; Three Kings is a pretty good movie too.
Second Iraq War
Main Effects: at least 150,000 dead (mostly civillains); no WMDs found; no Al-Qaeda link; democracy getting off to a shaky start.
Upshot for the US: Economy receives boost from sales of patriotic bumper-stickers; Rush Limbaugh stops talking about Bill Clinton for a change; lots of great stock footage for the History Channel.
Korean War
Main Effects: 2.5 million dead; war never officially ends; North Korea goes on to become the world's most abominable police state; South Korea turns out well.
Upshot for the US: Hyundai cars & Samsung phones
Vietnam War
Main Effects: about 5 million dead; communists win anyway; Soviet Union goes down without a fight 15 years later; China abandons most of Communism's economic policies; Vietnam still one of the world's poorest & least free countries.
Upshot for the US: Apocalypse Now and Full Metal Jacket are both great movies.
First Iraq War
Main Effects: about 50,000 dead (figure is disputed); Saddam's regime left more or less intact; Shia uprising ruthlessly suppressed.
Upshot for the US: Americans get to feel good about winning a war again; cheaper gasoline for a few more years; Three Kings is a pretty good movie too.
Second Iraq War
Main Effects: at least 150,000 dead (mostly civillains); no WMDs found; no Al-Qaeda link; democracy getting off to a shaky start.
Upshot for the US: Economy receives boost from sales of patriotic bumper-stickers; Rush Limbaugh stops talking about Bill Clinton for a change; lots of great stock footage for the History Channel.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Social Activism
Global Warming, Iraq War, Population Growth....the list of causes clamoring for my involvement is endless. I'm not indifferent to the world's problems or suffering of others; it's just that there isn't a whole lot I can do (as an individual) about it. Putting a bumper sticker on my car is going to stop someone from being oppressed in a country on the other side of the planet.
The success of these various social movements depends on the participation of large numbers of people. My participation most likely won't affect the outcome. Even if I was* the most persuasive person alive, I doubt I could convince enough people to alter things significantly. Even if I could, would I be doing the right thing?
If you think Global Warming is going to melt the polar ice caps, cause sea levels to rise, and flood low-lying areas, move to higher ground. That's easier than trying to get millions of people to pollute less isn't it? I'm not saying you should stop caring about public issues, but there is a limit to what can be accomplished through mass movements, especially when there are opposing mass movements.
Nothing can alter the fact that the world is just a collection of indivduals doing whatever they think is sensible. No matter how many laws are passed or repealed, or whoever gets elected or thrown out off office, the world would not be fundamentallly different than it is now. Mass movements succeed in changing things from time to time, but in my opinion, you're better off focusing what you can do on your own.
I think I'll finish off with this quote from Herbert Spencer:
"If in these personal affairs, where all the conditions of the case were known to me, I have so often miscalculated, how much oftener shall I miscalculate in political affairs, where the conditions are too numerous, too widespread, too complex, too obscure to be understood . . . when I remember how many of my private schemes have miscarried; how speculations have failed, agents proved dishonest, marriage been a disappointment; how I did but pauperize the relative I sought to help; how my carefully-governed son has turned out worse than most children; how the thing I desperately strove against as a misfortune did me immense good; how while the objects I ardently pursued brought me little happiness when gained, most of my pleasures have come from unexpected sources; when I recall these and hosts of like facts, I am struck with the incompetence of my intellect to prescribe for society."
*Proper grammar would be "If I were," however, I feel that rule is stupid. A singular subject should take a singular verb.
The success of these various social movements depends on the participation of large numbers of people. My participation most likely won't affect the outcome. Even if I was* the most persuasive person alive, I doubt I could convince enough people to alter things significantly. Even if I could, would I be doing the right thing?
If you think Global Warming is going to melt the polar ice caps, cause sea levels to rise, and flood low-lying areas, move to higher ground. That's easier than trying to get millions of people to pollute less isn't it? I'm not saying you should stop caring about public issues, but there is a limit to what can be accomplished through mass movements, especially when there are opposing mass movements.
Nothing can alter the fact that the world is just a collection of indivduals doing whatever they think is sensible. No matter how many laws are passed or repealed, or whoever gets elected or thrown out off office, the world would not be fundamentallly different than it is now. Mass movements succeed in changing things from time to time, but in my opinion, you're better off focusing what you can do on your own.
I think I'll finish off with this quote from Herbert Spencer:
"If in these personal affairs, where all the conditions of the case were known to me, I have so often miscalculated, how much oftener shall I miscalculate in political affairs, where the conditions are too numerous, too widespread, too complex, too obscure to be understood . . . when I remember how many of my private schemes have miscarried; how speculations have failed, agents proved dishonest, marriage been a disappointment; how I did but pauperize the relative I sought to help; how my carefully-governed son has turned out worse than most children; how the thing I desperately strove against as a misfortune did me immense good; how while the objects I ardently pursued brought me little happiness when gained, most of my pleasures have come from unexpected sources; when I recall these and hosts of like facts, I am struck with the incompetence of my intellect to prescribe for society."
*Proper grammar would be "If I were," however, I feel that rule is stupid. A singular subject should take a singular verb.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)