The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Spanky
Didn't the separist vote in Quebec get like 48%. And Quebec is like thirty percent Anglo?

Yes - in 1995. But I just don't see separation making economic sense for Quebec. Recent polls (November) suggest that support for separation is at 54%, up from 43% earlier in the year, but I think that is more anger over the sponsorship scandal than a lasting number. As some have noted, it is a lot easier to vote Yes in a poll than in a referendum. And the referendum is only an approval to negotiate with the rest of Canada over the terms of an association with them. I don't see the rest of Canada as agreeing to make it easy for them to be independent.

And these two ethnic groups don't really have a long traditional ethnic tradition and culture (unless you count that they are part of France and England).

Every anglophone Canadians I know would laugh at the idea of being part of England. They see themselves as Canadians. The only link they have to England is the occasional visit from the Queen, which is viewed as a royal pain in the ass (pun intended).

Where the hell is gwinky? She at least was born there. And I heart her avatar big time.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
the occasional visit from the Queen, which is viewed as a royal pain in the ass (pun intended).

Hmm. I thought it was the Prince who enjoyed that.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Spanky
I hope you are right but I am not hopeful. I told Dr. Rice that even though I supported Gulf War I, I was a little leary about it because I think Kuwait and the Arab part of Iraq will eventually unite. My problem wasn't the absorbtion of Kuwait by Iraq, it was that Saddam Hussein now had control of Kuwait so a psychotic dictator had more territory which was bad.

She told me she thought the future was in establishing the current states in the the middle east and Africa as stable nation states. She also told me that the idea of an Greater Arabia, was crazy, would never happen, and was clearly not in the US's or Isreal's interest. She said that the current lines should not be messed with and as long as there is prosperity the ethnic divisions would die down. I tried to point out that Belgium, which is prosperous, is on the verge of falling apart and same with Canada. And the ethnic divisioins are not nearly as strong in those countrys.

She still thought my idea of national boundaries having to reflect ethnic identities in order to have stability was pretty stupid and crazy.

Although I admit she is ten times smarter than me and infinitely more knowledgeable about the world, I am still arrogant enough to think she is wrong, and think her views if followed, could spell disaster.

Wow, the more you talk about your personal conversations with Dr. Rice, the more stupid she sounds.

Seriously, you're scaring the crap out of me. This is the best foreign policy mind the administration has to tap?

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Spanky
You just described Europe. Once the national boundaries are established and you have growth then they should get along. It is world wide depression that creates things like WWII. In my opinion the only way to get stability is ethnic nation states, democracy and prosperity (which requires free market systems).

One: Europe has been working on getting its ethnic nation states to settle into a a roughly stable pattern since the fall of the western Roman Empire, call it 500 A.D. So you're saying the Middle East is going to work itself out in abut 1500 years? (Actually, 1400; it seems like the date should start counting from the fall of the Ottoman Empire).

Two: If ethnicly homogenius states are necessary for long term stability, this does not bode will for the US.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by baltassoc
One: Europe has been working on getting its ethnic nation states to settle into a a roughly stable pattern since the fall of the western Roman Empire, call it 500 A.D. So you're saying the Middle East is going to work itself out in abut 1500 years?

Caveat -- the European states struggled under crimped versions of capitalism, what with the vassal states and all, for most of that time.

Fortunately, when God created the Free Market much later, the resulting growth, prosperity, and true love made today's stable democracies possible.

[Captain]

Originally posted by baltassoc
One: Europe has been working on getting its ethnic nation states to settle into a a roughly stable pattern since the fall of the western Roman Empire, call it 500 A.D. So you're saying the Middle East is going to work itself out in abut 1500 years? (Actually, 1400; it seems like the date should start counting from the fall of the Ottoman Empire).

Two: If ethnicly homogenius states are necessary for long term stability, this does not bode will for the US.

A couple points: the Americas (and Australia) are different, in that they have seen the development of new ethnicities (Americans, Brazilians, Argentinians, Mexcians, Australians) from a melange of other identities. Try to find me a place where this has happened in the world as it was known to white, yellow and black people living in 1491.

And, European ethnicities are much more recent than that; I think you're into Elizabethan times before there is a clear understanding of who is English and who is French. And the Middle East has been working itself out in any number of ways during that period as well, though it was interrupted by colonialism and empire building. So, I don't think it needs more than a couple hundred years to sort itself out, rather than a millenium or more.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Captain
A couple points: the Americas (and Australia) are different, in that they have seen the development of new ethnicities (Americans, Brazilians, Argentinians, Mexcians, Australians) from a melange of other identities. Try to find me a place where this has happened in the world as it was known to white, yellow and black people living in 1491.

And, European ethnicities are much more recent than that; I think you're into Elizabethan times before there is a clear understanding of who is English and who is French. And the Middle East has been working itself out in any number of ways during that period as well, though it was interrupted by colonialism and empire building. So, I don't think it needs more than a couple hundred years to sort itself out, rather than a millenium or more.

I didn't see any caveats like that from Spanky. I'd expect as much from relativists like you and Gatti.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Wow, the more you talk about your personal conversations with Dr. Rice, the more stupid she sounds.

Seriously, you're scaring the crap out of me. This is the best foreign policy mind the administration has to tap?

You actually agree with me? No one agrees with me accept for some people who do acid. My theory that national boundries have to reflect ethnic divisions to be stable is not shared by many people. Almost every foreign policy expert I have ever talked to agrees with Dr. Rice.

An accpetance of my theory would mean a radical change to US foreign policy that I don't think has every been followed.

I appreciate you calling her not smart for not agreeing with me, but she is actually one of the smartest people I have ever met.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Captain
A couple points: the Americas (and Australia) are different, in that they have seen the development of new ethnicities (Americans, Brazilians, Argentinians, Mexcians, Australians) from a melange of other identities. Try to find me a place where this has happened in the world as it was known to white, yellow and black people living in 1491.

And, European ethnicities are much more recent than that; I think you're into Elizabethan times before there is a clear understanding of who is English and who is French. And the Middle East has been working itself out in any number of ways during that period as well, though it was interrupted by colonialism and empire building. So, I don't think it needs more than a couple hundred years to sort itself out, rather than a millenium or more.

2. The ethnicities in the new world and australia are so new they don't count. Being American, Australian or Venezuelan is not really dependent on a shared culture, shared language, shared ethnic music, dress and heritage. I don't care how many generations and Indian family lives in England they will never be English. But they will become American pretty quickly.

The different Romance languages in Europe didn't even really develop fully until the year 1000 (before that French, Spanish, Italian and portugese were all supposed to be classic latin and were written in latin. These were just phoenetic languages up to that point.) The Anglo Saxons didn't throw the Celts out of England until 700?. It is in the 1200 when national identities really started to form. Nation states soon followed. Although it did take Italy and Germany a while (although Italy could be considered a federatoin of different nationalities - a sicilian does not have much in common with a Tuscan and Germany was the Holy Roman Empire). The nation state became so ingrained in people's thinking that Poland was referred to as a country when it didn't even exist (when it was divided between Russia and Germany before WWI).

And the TV and Radio have really solidified the concept of the nation state. French slowly change to German on its way from Paris through Alsace to Germany. But once Radio and TV came along the stations had to be in a language and it happened really quickly were people either understood it or didn't. That ones that didn't felt like they were not part of the group that did.

It used to be that a Moroccan could not undestand Egyptian Arabic or Saudi Arabic. But now with satellite arabic TV stations like Al Jezeera, all Arabs undersand standard Egyptian Arabic. The central asian turkish republics are all watching Turkish TV and Radio merging all the Turkis dialects.

TV and Radio accelerate the process.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Spanky My theory that national boundries have to reflect ethnic divisions to be stable is not shared by many people. Almost every foreign policy expert I have ever talked to agrees with Dr. Rice.

I agree with you. Also, reading between the lines, I believe Bernard Lewis agrees with you. So, you're in good company.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Add in fighting between the Pashtuns and the Urdu in Afghanstan, several of the former Soviet Republics, and Turkey.

There are four ethnicities in Afghanistan. Turks in the North West near Uzbekistan (10%), Dari (persian speaking) that run through the country connecting Iran (Persian speaking) with Tadjikistan (Persian Speaking) (40%). The Pashtuns (where most of the Taliban come from) ( 35%) who are all on the Easterm side of Afghanistan along the Pakistani Border. And in the deep South Baluchis (5%). Every single ethnicity has bretheren in one or more country and there are more of every ethnicity in some other country. These ethnicities also are pretty well segregaged and they all sit next to some bretheren on the other side of the border.

I think Urdu is a trading language (similar to Swahili) and not a native language, but spoken throughout Pakistan. It is very similar to Hindi and both Hindi and Urdu have some similarities with Persian. But I dont think there is any Urdu ethnicity in Afghanistan.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by bilmore
I agree with you. Also, reading between the lines, I believe Bernard Lewis agrees with you. So, you're in good company.

Do you drop acid?

Does Bernard Lewis?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Spanky
There are four ethnicities in Afghanistan. Turks in the North West near Uzbekistan (10%), Dari (persian speaking) that run through the country connecting Iran (Persian speaking) with Tadjikistan (Persian Speaking) (40%). The Pashtuns (where most of the Taliban come from) ( 35%) who are all on the Easterm side of Afghanistan along the Pakistani Border. And in the deep South Baluchis (5%). Every single ethnicity has bretheren in one or more country and there are more of every ethnicity in some other country. These ethnicities also are pretty well segregaged and they all sit next to some bretheren on the other side of the border.

I think Urdu is a trading language (similar to Swahili) and not a native language, but spoken throughout Pakistan. It is very similar to Hindi and both Hindi and Urdu have some similarities with Persian. But I dont think there is any Urdu ethnicity in Afghanistan.

Have you read The Kite Runner by Khaled Hosseini, an Afgahn physician living in the Bay Area? It's a work of fiction, but I learned more about the internal struggles in Afghanistan over the last 30 years through this book than I have from any other source.

One of the things that really struck me was a comment made by the protagonist's father early on in the book about his religious education. I paraphrase, but essentially he said of the mullahs that they're teaching a religion in a language that they themselves don't understand, so how can they possibly know what they'e talking about? For some reason, I didn't realize that Islam is still similar to pre-Vatican II Catholicism, and that everything is kept in the original Arabic, despite the followers' lack of understanding of the words.

At any rate, in addition to amazingly informative, I found the book to be beautifully written, and I thought that the story was lovely. I read it over the course of the Thanksgiving holiday, and it's a fairly fast read, I think. I highly recommend.

[Spanky]

Bats and balls
Dec 8th 2005
From The Economist print edition

Bigger testes mean smaller brains


MEN are often accused by women of, to put it bluntly, having their brains in their balls. A joke, of course. But perhaps not as much of one as people might like to think. For a study of bats carried out by Scott Pitnick, of Syracuse University in New York State, and his colleagues, suggests that there really is a trade-off between the two organs.

With about 1,000 species, bats are the second-largest group of mammals (rodents are top), so there is plenty of material for interspecies studies. Dr Pitnick's project, published in this week's Proceedings of the Royal Society, looked at brain size and testis size in 334 of those species. Sadly, the team's research budget did not allow it to jet around the world and gather data directly. Instead of visiting bat caves, the scientists visited their universities' libraries. But bats are a well-studied group, and so the team was able to gather pertinent data on the anatomy and behaviour of a third of them.

The hypothesis they were testing came in two parts. The first was that in any given species, the average male's testis size as a fraction of body weight will depend on the behaviour of that species' females—in particular, how promiscuous those females are. The second was that, given that brain tissue and testis tissue are among the most expensive to maintain physiologically, and that bats have a very tight energy budget, bigger balls would result in smaller brains.

The team knew, from work done some time ago, that the first part of their hypothesis is true in primates. Greater promiscuity in females does, indeed, lead to bigger testes, presumably because a male needs to make more sperm to have a fighting chance of fathering offspring, if those sperm are competing with sperm from a lot of other males. Gorillas, which discourage dalliances between other males and the females of their harem, have small testes. Chimpanzees, among whom females mate widely, have large ones. Human testes lie between these two extremes.

And so it proved in bats. Bat testes range from 0.11% of body weight in the African yellow-winged bat, to a whacking 8.4% in the generously endowed Rafinesque's big-eared [sic] bat. (The largest primate testes by contrast, those of the crab-eating macaque, are a mere 0.75% of body mass.) And the small balls were indeed found in species where females were monogamous (though they might be members of harems), while the large ones were found in species where females mated widely.

Brain size, by contrast, and just as predicted, varied in the opposite direction. Nor was it dependent on the level of male promiscuity. In the bat world, it seems that you do not have to be cleverer to be a libertine than to be a faithful husband. But if the girls are putting it about, it is better to be virile and dim, than impotent and smart.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
For some reason, I didn't realize that Islam is still similar to pre-Vatican II Catholicism, and that everything is kept in the original Arabic, despite the followers' lack of understanding of the words.

The Koran was taken written down directly from the words of Mohammed. They are also very poetic. It is tradition that they lose their meaning if they are translated. Arabic is a sacred language to the muslims. Many don't like it when the Koran is translated.

The Catholic attachment to Latin is a little weird because Jesus spoke Aramaic and the first Gospels were written in Greek. So any Latin text has been translated at least twice.