Entre Nous / Musings of a former Belgian

Another reason why I loathe Ralph Nader

As if I needed any more. (hat tip: Jane Galt)

Nobel laureate Aumann on logic of war

Prof. Yisrael Aumann, who was given this year's Nobel Prize in Economics for his contributions to game theory, discusses the science of war.

Up to now all our efforts have been put into resolving specific conflicts: India–Pakistan, North–South Ireland, various African wars, Balkan wars, Russia–Chechnya, Israel–Arab, etc., etc.
 
I'd like to suggest that we should shift emphasis and study war in general.
 
War has been with us ever since the dawn of civilization. Nothing has been more constant in history than war. It's a phenomenon, not a series of isolated events. Efforts to resolve specific conflicts are certainly laudable, and sometimes they bear fruit.
 
But there's also another way of going about it - studying war as a general phenomenon, studying general characteristics, identifying common denominators and differences. Why does homo economicus - rational man - go to war?
 
[...]
 
Can war be rational? Unfortunately, the answer is yes. In his second inaugural address – one of the great speeches of all time - Abraham Lincoln said, "Both parties deprecated war; but one would make war rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came."
 
It is a big mistake to say that war is irrational. We take all the ills of the world—wars, strikes, racial discrimination—and dismiss them by calling them irrational. But it is not necessarily so. Though painful, they may be rational.
 
Once we understand that war is rational, we can at least somehow address the problem. If we simply dismiss it as irrational, we can't address the problem.
 
I'd like to do an economic analysis of war. Not about how to finance a war, how to rebuild after a war, or anything like that. Rather, about the incentives that lead to war, and about building incentives that prevent war.
 
To prevent war, an obvious solution might be to disarm, to lower the level of armaments. Right?
 
But in fact the opposite might be true. In the long, dark years of the cold war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, what prevented war was the existence of nuclear weapons. Disarming would have led to war.
 
And so we see again, the bottom line is that we should start studying war, from all viewpoints, for its own sake. Try to understand what makes it happen. Pure, basic science.
 
That may lead, eventually, to peace. The piecemeal, case-based approach has not worked too well up to now.
 
The prophet Isaiah says that in order to reach a situation where nations beat their swords into ploughshares, one must have a central government, recognized by all. In the absence of that, one can perhaps have peace—no nation lifting up its sword against another. But the swords have to be there—they cannot be beaten into ploughshares—and the nations must continue to study war.

Liveblogging Israeli media updates on Sharon...

.. is Omri Keren at Mere Rethoric. Check back frequently.

Deepak Chopra: off the moral deep end

On a completely different subject, an excellent rebuttal to Deepak Chopra's latest inane exercise in moral equivalence. What makes the rebuttal interesting is that it draws on the same Hindu sources that allegedly inspire Chopra's alleged mind. (Hat tip: Dr. Sanity.)

A nation holds its breath

Ariel Sharon rushed to hospital .

The PM previously had what was reported as "a light stroke" in the media, but to me sounded like a TIA (transient ischemic attack). Such an event resolves itself spontaneously without permanent damage, but is often a harbinger of the real thing. Which --- G-d forbid --- seems to have happened now. Sadly, I just hear Prof. Mor-Yosef of the Hadassah hospital announce on Channel 10 that following medical imaging, the PM was diagnosed as having had a cerebral hemorrhage and has been brought to the operating theater, where they are presumably trying to apply drainage in order to limit the resulting damage. Deputy PM Ehud Olmert is his designated substitute for the duration of Sharon's incapacitation.

Few Israelis are under any illusions that Ariel Sharon is lilywhite. (Or, as the equivalent Hebrew expression goes, "a prayershawel all purple".) This morning's latest revelations about the campaign financing scandal his sons and possibly himself are involved in just confirms this. Yet all of us who are not on the lunatic fringes are holding our breaths. There is no real leadership anywhere in Israel's political spectrum that can fill Sharon's shoes.

Our prayers are with you, Ariel ben Vera.

UPDATE: After having been on the operating table for six hours, Sharon got another CT scan, and was rushed straight back to the table for surgery to control additional hemorrhaging sites. A number of questions arise. Apparently, following the earlier TIA and in preparation for the catheterization surgery that was to have taken place today, Sharon was put on an aggressive anticoagulation regime --- including coumadin (a.k.a. warfarin). The latter drug has a very narrow "therapeutic range" --- i.e. the therapeutic dose is dangerously close to toxic levels. Why something less aggressive like aspirin wasn't used is beyond me. The doctor in question must never have heard of the first Hippocratic Rule: "above all, do no harm"...

UPDATE 2: condition described as "serious but stable", in intensive care unit, will be kept in induced coma and on respirator for at least 24 hours in order to give brain chance to recover.

Meanwhile in Hebron (according to YnetNews), right-wing nutjob Itamar Ben-Gvir takes some time out from Lewinskying a dildo modelled on Kahane's d*ck and throws a party to celebrate Sharon's deterioration. I wish upon the participants everything they are wishing on Sharon, with 15% interest thrown in for good measure.

The year that was

To my readers, a happy ISO year 2006.

Among various "the year that was" posts, Patterico's summary of LA Times bias stands out, both in the level of detail and in the degree to which it is representative of systemic problems with much of the LameStreamMedia. Needless to say, the LA Times reacts by shooting at the messenger.