The US Should Leave the UN

Last week sure was full of craziness at the United Nations. With each new headline I kept thinking... when will the USA pull out of the UN altogether?

Many would agree that the UN has problems, like all major international organziations do, but claim it does much good work too. I won't sit here and assert that the UN has never done anything good for anyone. I don't need to make such a sweeping (and no doubt false) statement. But folks who argue that the US should continue as part of the UN (while perhaps trying to slowly reform it) need to consider these important questions:

1. Does the UN, right now and in the forseeable future, do more good than harm, or more harm than good? And for who? When considering the question of whether the US should be in the UN, the answer to the "for who" question must obviously be "for America and American interests". And this can certainly include our wanting to see poverty-stricken people of the world improve their living conditions, freedom spread to those who don't have it, and so on -- not just "American interests" in a narrow, economic sense.
2. In principle, should the USA sit down together with countries that are not democracies (i.e., they are statist dictatorships, fascist, monarchies, one-party-rule communist/socialist, and so on), do not respect basic individual rights (for all people, both men and women, and of all groups), and do not participate -- that is, do not allow their citizens to participate -- even semi-freely in capitalist globalization and free-trade?

The first question is debatable. Like I said, I won't deny that the UN -- with all its various programs and things it has done since its creation -- hasn't helped some people at some times. But it has also done a lot of outright harm as well. Plus we must consider the opportunity cost that its existence represents -- if it does some good things, but does them inefficiently, then the funds and resources it uses could have been used to help more people if the UN didn't exist.

So this is a complicated question. However, some of the reasons I think that the good the UN has done over the years is not enough reason for the US to continue to be a part of it can be found in articles such as Mark Steyn's superb "America and the United Nations". Very impressive, and highly recommended!

The second question is the more fundamental, and it is why I have always been against the America's involvement in the UN, and why I don't think it should ever have existed in the way that it has.

On principle, I don't think that countries such as the US, Great Britain, Australia, Canada, Germany, France, and many others should be members of international bodies that also have as members countries such as North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, Sudan, and so on. Any country that doesn't meet the minimal criteria I mentioned earlier should not be included in such a gathering of nations: some form of democratic elections on a regular basis, a constitution or similar mechanism that limits the government and protects basic individual rights (the principle of the rule of law vs. the rule of men), and some sort of at least partially capitalist system that respects property rights, free trade, and so on. Even very small countries that have monarchies that are unelected, but whom the people don't have major grievances with, alas, such countries should not be included either -- they don't meet all the minimum qualifications.

It should be noted that the leaders of countries that violate individual rights as a matter of policy and routine and who do not have fair and open elections, such countries are actually ruled by criminals. Such leaders do not have the right to lead their countries.

Think of this by analogy to regular criminals and their relationship with the citizens they prey on and with law enforcement. We do not sit down with those who violate our rights and negotiate our differences; we don't sit down at a big table or in a massive lecture hall and hear the points of view of murderers, thieves, kidnappers, and rapists. So why do we pay respect to, and give sanction to, the illegitimate leaders and representatives of countries who deserve no such respect, who by their very nature as the kind of leaders they are (or as representatives of those kinds of governments) necessarily commit crimes by violating individual rights?

We should instead shun them completely. No ambassadors, no official government connections of any kind, and no fellow membership in the same international organizations. Until they change their ways of course.

I'll note that if private individuals or companies want to do business in such countries (tourism, trade, etc.), that should, for the most part, be up to them. But at the same time, if something happens to them in such countries, the US government shouldn't be responsible for stepping in to save such folks either.

So, with that viewpoint in mind, what would happen if the US announced a position such as this, and intentions to leave the UN because of it? What if a US president, at some point in the future, gave an historic speech in which he announced the above principles and that, unless the UN self-reformed along these lines (by kicking out a great many nation states), the US would be pulling out of the organization in, say, six months? What would happen? Perhaps the UN would buckle and reform along such lines. But I think more likely, the six months would pass by, the US would pull out, several other nations woulf follow, the UN would have to relocate to some city other than New York (we could give them a bit more time to do that), and the US would then work to have strong relations with countries that have the positive attributes outlined above. Potentially, we might work with Great Britain and others to start up a new UN-like organization, if we all thought it was worthwhile to do so. Or we could devote more effort and resources to private charities that attempt to help third world countries, help stop human rights violations, etc.

Think about this while you read the article by Steyn linked above (which I strongly recommend).

Or think about it in relation to the newly formed Human Rights Council (which replaces the disgraced Human Rights Commission). The United States rightly voted against (along with only Israel, Palau, and the Marshal Islands) the formation of this council due to its serious deficiencies. For instance, how is it that the first group of 47 members includes Cuba, Saudi Arabia, and Tunisia, whose inclusion is absurd, as well as major countries with mixed human rights records in recent years such as China and Russia? And consider that several of its first major actions have been to begin investigations into Israel's alleged human rights violations in the recent war with Lebanon/Hezbollah, while not taking similar actions to look into Hezbollah's actions? This is exactly the kind of thing that brought criticism to the old HR Commission! (See the Wikipedia entry on the new HRC for some quick info about the new organization.)

Of course, I don't see the US making such a bold decision and taking such a course of action with regards to the UN anytime soon. Sadly, to get our government and the sentiments of a majority of US citizens to that point, I think it would take several more incidents (of various kinds, perhaps) of the magnitude of 9/11. And I don't wish for that of course.

One Man's Take on the Culture Clash

Stephen Browne has posted part one of a very interesting column over at the Atlasphere, Observations on Arabs. Having lived and worked in Saudi Arabia for a year, he is able to make cultural comparisons that most Americans cannot.

Civil Liberties vs. Fundamental Rights

Thanks goes to Zach Oakes for the link to this article by Felipe Sediles in the April issue of The Undercurrent. There are a couple of good points made in the article, including the emphasis on the need for foreign policy to deal with terrorism instead of relying on police actions domestically. But the best point is the articulation of the distinction between civil liberties and fundamental rights.

It Must Be Election Season

I got a good laugh from this post from the blog at Reason magazine. It includes this attack ad from by Vernon Robinson, who's trying to unseat incumbent Democrat Miller for the U.S. House of Representatives in the 13th District of North Carolina. See also this post from Jeff Diehl who provides some other interesting items from Robinson's ads. I'm not a conservative, so I am quite sure I don't agree with a great many of Robinson's views and positions. But I got a few chuckles of amazement from this ad of his.

FDA Should Retire at Age 100

The Food and Drug Administration is now 100 years old. It should retire, before it does much more harm. Here is a brief column by Richard Ralston, that describes some of the problems with the FDA, and proposes some ways to replace it with something better.

Outstanding Comments on Pope and the Reaction

Lee Harris at TCS Daily has provided some excellent commentary regarding the reaction to the Pope's recent controversial speech. In particular, the analogy he gives is just outstanding! (Much thanks to Stephen Hicks for this link.)

Then philosopher Lester Hunt has two good posts on this issue, here and here. Plus he points me to Anne Applebaum's excellent Washington Post column. Her final three paragraphs our superb:

"By this, I don't mean that we all need to rush to defend or to analyze this particular sermon; I leave that to experts on Byzantine theology. But we can all unite in our support for freedom of speech -- surely the pope is allowed to quote from medieval texts -- and of the press. And we can also unite, loudly, in our condemnation of violent, unprovoked attacks on churches, embassies and elderly nuns. By "we" I mean here the White House, the Vatican, the German Greens, the French Foreign Ministry, NATO, Greenpeace, Le Monde and Fox News -- Western institutions of the left, the right and everything in between. True, these principles sound pretty elementary -- "we're pro-free speech and anti-gratuitous violence" -- but in the days since the pope's sermon, I don't feel that I've heard them defended in anything like a unanimous chorus. A lot more time has been spent analyzing what the pontiff meant to say, or should have said, or might have said if he had been given better advice.

All of which is simply beside the point, since nothing the pope has ever said comes even close to matching the vitriol, extremism and hatred that pour out of the mouths of radical imams and fanatical clerics every day, all across Europe and the Muslim world, almost none of which ever provokes any Western response at all. And maybe it's time that it should: When Saudi Arabia publishes textbooks commanding good Wahhabi Muslims to "hate" Christians, Jews and non-Wahhabi Muslims, for example, why shouldn't the Vatican, the Southern Baptists, Britain's chief rabbi and the Council on American-Islamic Relations all condemn them -- simultaneously?

Maybe it's a pipe dream: The day when the White House and Greenpeace can issue a joint statement is surely distant indeed. But if stray comments by Western leaders -- not to mention Western films, books, cartoons, traditions and values -- are going to inspire regular violence, I don't feel that it's asking too much for the West to quit saying sorry and unite, occasionally, in its own defense. The fanatics attacking the pope already limit the right to free speech among their own followers. I don't see why we should allow them to limit our right to free speech, too."

Seyyed Nasr is Dangerously Confused

David Boaz reports on an interesting inteview of Sayyed Hossein Nasr (who has a PhD from Harvard and has published over 20 books, including from Oxford Univ. Press). In it he claims that the Pope's recent, controversial statements were themselves "acts of violence". Although Boaz doesn't apparently see a clash of civilizations looming yet, he does note:

But if Islamic scholars who teach at great American universities believe that violent attacks “on churches, embassies and elderly nuns” are “provoked” by the words of a religious leader in a university speech a thousand miles away, then we certainly have a clash of world views.

Indeed. Either Nasr is dangerously confused about the concept of "violence", or he is evading key distinctions on purpose for philosophical reasons.

Member of the Left Criticizes the Left

In his article in the LA Times "Head-in-the-Sand Liberals", Sam Harris, who describes himself as a liberal, takes American liberals to task for their dangerous attitudes toward Islamic fundamentalists and the "war on terror". After making a persuasive case, he concludes:

Increasingly, Americans will come to believe that the only people hard-headed enough to fight the religious lunatics of the Muslim world are the religious lunatics of the West. Indeed, it is telling that the people who speak with the greatest moral clarity about the current wars in the Middle East are members of the Christian right, whose infatuation with biblical prophecy is nearly as troubling as the ideology of our enemies. Religious dogmatism is now playing both sides of the board in a very dangerous game.

While liberals should be the ones pointing the way beyond this Iron Age madness, they are rendering themselves increasingly irrelevant. Being generally reasonable and tolerant of diversity, liberals should be especially sensitive to the dangers of religious literalism. But they aren't.

A good article.

On a side point, my one complaint about this article is something that is increasingly becoming an issue for me, which is the use of "liberal" in the US to describe members of the political left. Europe has retained the original use of that term, to refer to those who are pro free-market, individualism, small government, etc. -- what intellectuals in America now have to clumsily call "classical liberal" (and sometimes "libertarian"). In Harris' article this gets confusing at the very end, when he notes that the same problems he sees with American "liberals" can be seen in Europe... but there they don't call them "liberals", but rather "progressives" or "socialists" or whatever. The name "socialist" makes sense for those who are against private property, but in general I wish writers would refer to such folks as "leftists", especially if they are discussing global issues that span America and Europe -- which are more and more issues these days.

The Reason for Opium Explosion from Afghanistan

Jacob Sullum does a nice job of explaining the increasing poppy-growth in Afghanistan that is coinciding with the resurgence of the Taliban.

Tibor Machan on the Situation in Hungary

One of my favorite contemporary philosophers, Tibor Machan, was smuggled out of Hungary in 1956 at the age of 14. I was hoping he would comment on the current crisis in that country, and he did so recently in this column posted at the Atlasphere. Good stuff.

Grant to Create Center for Ethics and Entrepreneurship

I recently heard the outsanding news that the Philosophy Department at Rockford College has been given an unprecedented grant of $925,000 from the BB&T Foundation to create a Center for Ethics and Entrepreneurship. You can read this announcement for more info.

The Philosophy department at Rockford is chaired by my friend Stephen Hicks . In addition to his work in the area of business ethics, he is also author of a truly oustanding book Explaining Postmodernism (the best work in philosophy I've read in recent years). He is also on the board of directors of EpistemeLinks, Inc., the not-for-profit created to help my EpistemeLinks website project grow in the future.

Congratulations Stephen on this great opportunity, and I look forward to seeing the fruits of your endeavors!

Hitchens on the Pope's Recent Speech

Christopher Hitchens is always a worthwhile read. His Slate article last Monday, in response to the Pope's speech (that many Muslims reacted violently to), is no exception. A great analysis, and one that ends with the following excellent bit that refocuses the reader on the key issue of reason vs. faith:

...throughout [the Pope's] address to the audience at Regensburg, the man who modestly considers himself the vicar of Christ on Earth maintained a steady attack on the idea that reason and the individual conscience can be preferred to faith. He pretends that the word Logos can mean either "the word" or "reason," which it can in Greek but never does in the Bible, where it is presented as heavenly truth. He mentions Kant and Descartes in passing, leaves out Spinoza and Hume entirely, and dishonestly tries to make it seem as if religion and the Enlightenment and science are ultimately compatible, when the whole effort of free inquiry always had to be asserted, at great risk, against the fantastic illusion of "revealed" truth and its all-too-earthly human potentates. It is often said—and was said by Ratzinger when he was an underling of the last Roman prelate—that Islam is not capable of a Reformation. We would not even have this word in our language if the Roman Catholic Church had been able to have its own way. Now its new reactionary leader has really "offended" the Muslim world, while simultaneously asking us to distrust the only reliable weapon—reason—that we possess in these dark times. A fine day's work, and one that we could well have done without.

Congratulations to Trevor Hoffman

Congratulations to Trevor Hoffman, relief pitcher for the San Diego Padres, who today became the all-time leader in Saves with 479. Starting his big-league career in 1993, he has been a consistently great closer over his career, managing 37-53 saves 10 times, and posting an ERA below 3.00 every season except three.

This feat naturally raises the question of his Hall of Fame potential, and that of the player he just topped on the leaderboard, Lee Smith. In my early August posting on HOF prospects for current players, I said I thought Hoffman was a "near lock". Lee Smith isn't in, and hasn't come close yet -- he has gotten between 36-45% of the vote in each of the four years he has been eligible (75% is needed for induction). I think Lee Smith is a marginal candidate, who could very well make it someday, while Hoffman is nearly certain to make it -- though it might not be on his first year of eligibility.

You can see their career accomplishments at these two sites:
Baseball-Reference (through 2005): Lee Smith, Trevor Hoffman
Baseball-Reference: Lee Smith, Trevor Hoffman

A few important comparisons:
Lee Smith:
71-92 W-L
1289.1 IP
1251 Strikeouts
1133 hits allowed
486 walks
3.03 ERA
1.256 WHIP
13.5 seasons as primary closer
7-time all-star
9 teams (incl. two stints with the Cardinals)
Led League in Saves: 4 times, runner-up 4 times.
Best five years:
- 1991: 47 SV, 2.34 ERA
- 1983: 29 SV, 1.65 ERA (though somehow a 4-10 record?)
- 1990: 31 SV, 2.06 ERA (Red Sox and Cardinals combined)
- 1992: 43 SV, 3.12 ERA
- 1985: 33 SV, 3.04 ERA

Trevor Hoffman:
49-55 W-L
882.1 IP
963 Strikeouts
671 hits allowed
249 Walks
2.70 ERA
1.043 WHIP
12 seasons as primary closer
5-time all-star
2 teams (just 28 games in his rookie season for the Marlins)
Led League in Saves: 1 time, runner-up 5 times.
Best five years:
- 1998: 53 SV, 1.48 ERA
- 2006: 43 SV, 1.95 ERA (through 9/24, at age 38)
- 1996: 42 SV, 2.25 ERA
- 1999: 40 SV, 2.14 ERA
- 2004: 41 SV, 2.30 ERA

This makes for an interesting comparison. Smith bounced around, but did well just about everywhere, while Hoffman would be considered Mr. Padre if it weren't for someone named Gwynn.

Smith is ahead in all-star appearances, and significantly ahead in times leading the league in saves, though he did so in an era with fewer teams and noticeably lower SV totals in those years. Hoffman's stats in his best five years are much more impressive. His career ERA is better, and even when you relativize to the league ERA, his lifetime ERA+ is 146 compared to Smith's 132. Hoffman has a much better WHIP (Walks + Hits, per Innings Pitched, for the uninitiated) over his career. Both were good strikeout pitchers, with Hoffman being a bit stronger there too.

So, in the end, it won't surprise me to see Smith get elected someday. This could happen soon too, if there is a run on Closers getting in after Sutter finally (and deservedly) got the call in 2006 (and Eckersley in 2003). The line starts now with Goose Gossage, who earned 64.6% of the vote this year. It'll be tough for any relievers to make it in 2007, given that Ripken and Gwynn (and McGwire) will be first-time candidates. John Franco will be eligible in 2010 I think, and he ranks third all-time with 424 saves. With Smith struggling to get the votes, I doubt Franco will make it. As I said in my earlier post, Mariano Rivera (who is currently fourth in saves) is a lock, once he becomes eligible. I think Hoffman is not the given that Rivera is, but should have an easier time than Smith is having.

Bernard Lewis on Freedom and Justice in Islam

Princeton's Bernard Lewis, who is arguably the most influential scholar on Mid-East Studies and Islam, has written "Freedom and Justice in Islam" (adapted from a lecture he delivered on July 16, 2006). I recommend this article for historical background you might not have gotten elsewhere.

Interesting Take on Global Warming Lawsuit

Greg Perkins over at Noodlefood offers up two interesting responses to the recent announcement of a lawsuit over global warming by California against six of the worlds largest car makers. He notes that there are many others that could be sued... why arbitrarily choose the car makers? What about the car owners, the car drivers, the car dealers, gas stations, or the oil companies? He also raises the possibility that this lawsuit might end up being a good thing, by bringing to light the shoddy science and arguments on the Global Warming side, much as the Dover, Pennsylvania "Intelligent Design" case did. We'll see...

Angelina Jolie To Star In Atlas Shrugged Movie

According to Variety magazine, Angelina Jolie will play Dagny Taggart in the upcoming production of Ayn Rand's epic Atlas Shrugged. If true, this is not a big surprise, as she is a Rand fan and there have been rumors of her interest in this role -- and the producers' desire to have her play it -- since the spring when word that the movie was in the works first leaked out.

See my July 15 posting for much more on the movie project, and my thoughts on a "dream cast" for it.

From Iranian "President" Ahmadinejad: Bow and Surrender

The following is from a speech from Iranian "President" Ahmadinejad:

If you want to have good relations with the Iranian people in the future, you should acknowledge the right and the might of the Iranian people, and you should bow and surrender to the might of the Iranian people. If you do not accept this, the Iranian people will force you to bow and surrender.

And somehow, the USA is the big "imperialist" country, huh? Far too few people understand what the word "imperialist" means.

See video clip at MEMRI. (Hat tip to Diana)

Deliberately Choosing to have Deaf Children

Thanks to GeekPress for the link to a Slate piece about this report showing some fertility clinics have helped couples deliberately select defective embryos (e.g., those that will be deaf). I agree that this is very disturbing to say the least. No mention of parents deliberately choosing embryos that will develop to be blind, lacking a particular limb, having asthma, or having celiac disease or various food or other allergies. I have no idea what types of things can or cannot be tested for and selected for or against, so maybe some of those aren't possible (or at least not yet).

The argument that the parents want the child to be a part of the deaf culture is ridiculous: it is a rationalization of the worst kind. Kids can, and if born to deaf parents, likely will learn sign language and be a part of that community anyway. There is no good reason to cripple them by taking away one of their five senses. Let them hear music. Let them hear speech. Let them hear. To actively select for genes that will produce a deaf child is cruel and evil.

Why do People Provoke John Stewart?

John Stewart is such a cultural icon amongst the young, hip teenage and adult world... why would any public figure provoke him in any way? Not to mention a Republican, conservative, or other favorite target of his? Even if you do get in one funny line, he will rip you to shreds with joke after joke, often night after night, and with no doubt a much wider audience.

One example of many: Bob Novak. Just hilarious.

Easter Bunny: The Rest of the Year

Yet another comedic gem from YouTube: The Easter Bunny Hates You. I especially liked the scenes with the musician in the park and the person getting on the elevator.

Search Libraries -- A Lot of Libraries

Recently I discovered WorldCat for the first time. This is an extremely impressive web service, especially for something still labelled as "beta". I was blown away by the data I got back on searches, and I tried some searches for some pretty obscure academic titles -- and quite accurately it indicated that the closest locations were several western NY academic libraries. You provide a title, author, keyword, etc., then click on the desired result, provide your zip code, and it tells you the closest libraries that have the item -- whether that library is in your home town or is hundreds or thousands of miles away! Try both the search box on the homepage and the advanced search functionality as well. I think you'll bookmark this site for sure!

Random Thoughts on World Statistics

One of the benefits of subscribing to The Economist magazine, besides getting a generally fine magazine each week, is receiving the Pocket World in Figures booklet. Split into two sections, World Rankings and Country Profiles, it provides statistics on a wide variety of things, from standard things like population and size, to other things such as environmental health and percentage of homes that own televisions.

As kids my brother and I both loved to peruse books of lists like this (too bad we didn't have the Internet at our fingertips back then). So I've enjoyed skimming through the first section (World Rankings) of the 2007 edition of this Pocket book from The Economist. And I thought I'd share the things that jumped out at me. No doubt your own list of salient points would be very different, as some of what I found striking is based on my own misperceptions and what surprised me in the data. Other things I include here are in line with what I thought, but are things I just found worthy of comment anyway. So for what its worth:

Population. In 2004, Poland (38.6m) has a larger population than Canada (31.7m). Morocco (31.1m) has almost as many people as Canada. Venezuela (26.2m) and Taiwan (22.7m) have more people than Australia (19.9m). I've always known that both Canada and Australia were large but relatively sparsely populated, but I wouldn't have guessed these comparisons correctly.

Future Population Estimates. China, India, and the USA were the three biggest in 1950, and still are in 2004. By 2050, the prediction is that they will still be the three largest, but India will takeover as #1, with nearly 1.6 billion people. Other big increases include India neighbor Pakistan that will nearly double in size from 157.3m in 2004 to 304.7m in 2050 (from 6th to 4th place), Nigeria which will go from 127.1m to 258.1m (10th to 6th), Congo-Kinshasa which will go from 54.4m to 177.3m (23rd to 9th), and Uganda which will go from 26.7m to 127m (39th to 13th). Of course, a lot can happen between now and 2050.

Slowest Population Growth. Most of the countries in the top 15 are either former USSR countries or other Eastern European countries. Their predicted negative population growth in percentage terms from 2004-2050 ranges from Ukraine -45.2% to Czech Republic -16.7%.

Asylum. The "Origin of Asylum Applications to Indust. Countries" list is not one a country would want a high ranking on. The top 10 countries are Russia, Serbia, China, Turkey, India, Nigeria, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, and Congo-Kinshasa. The opposite list, "Asylum Applications in Industrialised Countries", is the list a country can be proud to be on, and here the top 10 are: France, United States, United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, Austria, Sweden, Belgium, Switzerland, and Slovakia.

City Population. Tokyo is huge. The listing is based on "Urban agglomerations", and they note that "Data may change from year-to-year based on reassessments of agglomeration boundaries." But even so, Tokyo is listed as #1 at 35.3 million, and second place is Mexico City at 19.0 million, with New York City coming in a close third at 18.5 million.

The so-called G8. Based just on GDP of economies, there is a glaring problem with the current "G8". The USA is by far the largest economy, with 11.7 trillion. Then Japan is solidly in second place at 4.6. Germany has 2.7, UK has 2.1, and France has 2.0. Italy is a bit smaller at about 1.7, and Canada smaller still at 978 billion in GDP. Russia is by far the smallest, with just 581.4 billion. The trick here is that Italy ranks 7th, Canada 9th, and Russia only 15th in the world. So I can understand calls by some nations to make this gathering broader. China, afterall, ranks 6th in GDP with 1.9 trillion, plus their economy is growing at a fast rate in recent years. Spain has a case with just over 1 trillion and ranking 8th. Then countries that rank 10-14 are India, South Korea, Mexico, Australia, and Brazil. And barely below Russia is, surprising to me, Netherlands with 579 million in GDP. After that there is a big drop off, so I can see having it be a G16 rather than a G8.

Purchasing Power and the G8. Another way to consider possible expansion of the G8 is by looking at Purchasing Power in addition to just GDP. Here, the USA is first at 11.6 trillion GDP PPP, but China with its huge population rockets up the list to second at 7.6 trillion. Japan is third, and India jumps up to fourth. Then come Germany, UK, France, and Italy. Ranked 9-14 are Brazil, Russia, Spain, Mexico, Canada, and South Korea. At that point there is a noticeable gap, so perhaps a G14 would make sense: this would omit Australia which is 13th in GDP and 17th in PP, and Netherlands which is 16th in GDP and 19th in PP. Anyway, I can at least understand the complaints of various countries for not be included, most notably China and India.

Highest vs. Lowest GDP per Head. It is quite striking to compare the highest and lowest GDP per Head. Luxemborg is #1 at $69,420 (USA is ninth at $39,430). The lowest are Burundi at $90, Ethiopia at $110, and Congo-Kinshasa at $120. And there are 20 with $330 or lower. Yikes!

Deficit vs. Deficit as percent of GDP. Although no date is given, the list shows the USA with by far the largest deficit: $668 billion. Second place is Spain with "only" $49 billion as a deficit. But what is interesting is that the USA isn't even in the top 40 for Deficit as a percent of GDP. On this list, 16 countries have a deficit that is at 10% of their GDP. Yikes again!

Inflation. As I've blogged about before, Zimbabwe has had ridiculously high inflation in recent years due to the policies of dictator Robert Mugabe. In 2005 the consumer price inflation was 140%. And that wasn't a fluke, as the average annual CPI from 2000-2005 was 106%. Yikes yet again!

Most injured in road accidents. I don't think I've ever seen a list like this... so I was surprised to see that Qatar was way out in front with 9,681 people injured per 100,000 of population. Second place Kuwait is far behind at 2,155 per 100K. By the way, the USA is 10th on the list with 704 per 100K population.

Life expectancy. I love to hear of increasing life expectancy numbers, and the highest now is in little Andorra with a 2005 estimate of 83.5 years. Japan is second at 82.8, with the USA sadly coming in at only 40th place at 77.9. But just as impressive, but in a bad way, is the list for lowest life expectancy. Here Swaziland is at the top with a 29.9 years! Yikes... if I lived there, then on average, I'd be dead already. Others with overall LE numbers below 40 include Botswana, Lesotho, Zimbabwe, Zambia, and the Central Africa Rep.

Highest Health Spending. As a percent of GDP, the USA spends by far the most, 15.2%. Next are Switzerland 11.5% and Germany 11.1%.

CD Players per 100 Households. I found the statistics in this area (TV, telephone, CD, computer, mobile phone) to all be interesting. For CD Players, USA ranks only 16th with just 59.6% of households owning one. That seems really low to me. Top on the list was Norway at 90.1 and Denmark at 90.0.

Defense Spending. As a percent of GDP, North Korea is quite ridiculous of course. They spend 25% of GDP on defense, far ahead of country #2 Oman at 10%. Also not surprising, given the unstable nature of the region, many of the top 15 are from the middle east.

Environmental Performance Index. This listing gives a score based on a 100 point scale covering these six areas: environmental health, air quality, water resources, biodiversity and habitat, productive natural resources, and sustainable energy. I'd want to learn a lot more about what these categories mean and how "points" are awarded before I relied too much on these numbers. New Zealand tops the list with a score of 88, Sweden is next at 87.8, and then Finland at 87. The USA comes in 28th place with a 78.5 score, just behind Netherlands and just ahead of Cyprus. It is interesting to note that most of the countries in the top 30 or so are Western industrialized countries, which is exactly in line with what Bjorn Lomborg and others have been preaching for the past several years, namely that to improve the environment in the long-run money should be put into countries to support market reforms that pro-capitalist, pro-growth, and that reduce poverty. Such actions produce wealthy countries, and such countries are the ones that can then spend time and money focusing on environmental concerns (because the people are, for the most part, not concerned with day-to-day survival, political upheaval, etc.). The list of countries with the lowest scores in this area also buttresses this notion: Niger 25.7, then Chad, Mauritania, Mali, Ethiopia, Angola, Pakistan, Burkina Faso, Bangladesh, Sudan, and Nigeria all with scores below 45. Given their huge populations, it is unfortunate that India is also quite low at 47.7 (16th lowest) and China with 56.2 (40th lowest), and their air-quality subscores are particularly low. But at least their economies are growing at rapid rates because they are introducing pro-market reforms, so hopefully their environments will improve in the near future.

Forests. The USA is simply not losing its forests, so if you hear otherwise, don't believe it. The US is fourth in the world in forested land with 303.1 million hectares. Given this, if the USA was loosing its forests you'd expect to see it somewhere near the top in average annual loss of forested land, but they aren't. Between 2000-2005, Brazil is way out in front with an average loss of 3.1 million hectares (they are still second in the world with 477 million hectares). Indonesia is second in loss with 1.87 million hectares per year and then Sudan at 589 million. The USA, on the other hand is fourth on the list of biggest forested land gains. China has seen the biggest gains, by far, but the USA has averaged 159,000 more hectares of forested land per year from 2000-2005. Them is the facts.


Two lists that I would have loved to see and comment on, but were disappointing because of the way they were measured (based on my limited knowledge from the book) are Obesity and Highest Cost of Living. The Obesity ranking uses Body Mass Index (BMI), which I think is a pretty useless measure. And cost of living uses New York City to represent USA, and then uses the USA as an index score of 100, so that seems very strange to me -- cost of living varies widely across the USA.

WHO Supports DDT Use for Malaria Control

Finally... some sanity on the issue of DDT use for Malaria control in Africa. Its about time!

On Friday the World Health Organization announced that it "that indoor spraying with DDT and other insecticides will once again play a major role in its efforts to fight malaria. WHO is now recommending the use of indoor residual spraying not only in epidemic areas but also in areas with constant and high malaria transmission, including throughout Africa." (see also AP coverage, such as in Wash. Times).

And kudos to US Senator Tom Coburn as well (quoting the WHO release):

“Indoor spraying is like providing a huge mosquito net over an entire household for around-the-clock protection,” said U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, a leading advocate for global malaria control efforts. “Finally, with WHO’s unambiguous leadership on the issue, we can put to rest the junk science and myths that have provided aid and comfort to the real enemy – mosquitoes – which threaten the lives of more than 300 million children each year.”

This has been long called for and necessary -- it could have been done long ago. See this brief item from Cato last year for some good information on the issue.

Nominal Inequality vs. Material Inequality

Another great post from Will Wilkinson in his series of posts asking questions about why economists and inequality. In this one, Will discusses an important distinction between nominal inequality (the difference in the size of people's money incomes) and material inequality (the differences in people's living conditions). He argues, quite persuasively that while the former is increasing in society, the latter is decreasing. And it should be material inequality that people should care about, rather than fixating on nominal inequality (like so many on the Left do).

(See also my earlier blog entries here and here on Will's writing in this area.)

Led Zeppelin BBC Sessions

I recently purchased (on eBay, of course) the Led Zeppelin BBC Sessions (2-cd set). This is a compilation album released in 1997. The first CD has 14 tracks from three BBC radio broadcasts, and the second CD has 10 tracks from a 1971 concert in London. Most of the songs are versions of ones that made it onto standard Zeppelin studio albums, but a few are other pieces. The blues influence on Zeppelin is very evident in this collection. (See the Wikipedia entry for more info.)

For Zeppelin fans, I definitely think this set is a worthwhile buy. I guess my favorites from this set would be What Is And What Should Never Be from CD 1, and then Stairway to Heaven, Going to California, and That's the Way from CD 2.

Which Is the Best Logical Fallacy?

This is hilarious -- "arguments" for why each logical fallacy is "the best", and each commits the very logical fallacy it is touting!

Consequentialist Bioethicist Is Proud of Efforts to Restrict Organ Donations

Much thanks to Virginia Postrel for her continued blogging on the need for a free market in organ donations (kidneys, etc.). A recent posting -- with the awesome title And How Many People Did That Kill, Art? -- links to an interview of bioethicist Art Caplan of Penn. Although Caplan's views seem to be a mixed bag -- for instance, he rightly was against government intervention in the Terri Schiavo case. But when asked what debates he has most influenced, he leads off with "I was involved in the National Organ Transplant Act. I single-­handedly held up the movement toward creating markets in organs." Hence the superb blog title from Postrel.

Later in the interview Caplan states that: "I'm a consequentialist: I'm looking at outcomes. I'm trying to decide if a particular policy--such as allowing surgeons to do face transplants--would do more harm than good."

So apparently he thinks that opening up the current organ donation regime will do more harm than good. He is against more people donating organs that save lives and save people from pain and misery (e.g., kidney dialysis), because that is exactly what a free-market in organ donation would lead to. If you let people gain value from their donations of part of their body (which more than anything else is their property, remember), far more people will do so -- living people would be more willing to donate a kidney, and far more people would sign up for organ donation upon their death if they knew that their family would receive some financial payment in return. And such a free-market system would also remove the stigma associated with people selectively giving to particular individuals (friends, relatives, etc.) instead of giving through the regulated system to a complete stranger. Caplan is against all that it seems, because his analysis is that somehow it would do more harm than good.

But, as with all consequentialists, the important question to ask is: more harm or good, for whom? Certainly the people who will get organs that they wouldn't otherwise get (many of whom will die much sooner as a result) will experience only massive good from a free-market in organ donations.

Actions and events are good or harmful to individuals, and there is no "ethical value" common denominator that a consequenialist can use to compare "good/harmful for me" vs. "good/harmful for you". There are no numbers to add up, no comparisons that can even be made. To use a cliche, it is apples and oranges here. And that is all the more obvious in a case like organ donation, where lives are directly at stake. How does Caplan add up evaluations, what he calls the good and the harm, across millions of people? How does he rate Person X's life being saved by an organ donation that wouldn't otherwise have been made, or person Y's life being significantly improved in similar fashion... how does he compare those, and to what? What is the harm on the other side of the ledger that he thinks outweighs the good for persons X and Y? And even if some other person is somehow harmed (?), what is the evaluative common denominator by which he can legitimately compare it with the good for persons X and Y?

That is a rhetorical question of course. It simply can't be done -- this is the critical, fundamental flaw in consequentialist schemes in ethics (other than agent-centered consequentialism, such as ethical egoism). There is no way to add up the good/harm for two or more people, or otherwise compare the consequences for each, because all such good/harm is always "good/harm for the particular person". This is simply a fact about the nature of value: the very concept of value presupposes answers to the questions "For whom?" and/or "For what?". (Note: I'm not advocating ethical subjectivism, in the sense of whatever a person chooses to do is therefore "good" for them. Rather, I'm saying that whatever is objectively good for a person can only be said to be "good" in the context of that person, and you can't compare goods and harms -- consequences -- across persons.)

Perhaps it is too much to try and nail down Mr. Caplan on an answer anyway, as in the interview he also states: "In general, I'm not looking for fundamental truths when I discuss ethics. What matters is what is most practical at a given time. I ask, "What are the bene­fits and costs?" And I understand that the answer will change over time."

So his consequentialist answers are not only incoherent at any point in time, but will also change over time, based on pragmatism. Wow.

Solid Red Oxygen

Solid Red Oxygen: those three words don't seem to fit together, do they? There seems to be a category mistake here. But no! See this article from Nature that reports that scientists have reported the crystal structure of a a form of solid oxygen that is dark red in color and that is formed under immense pressure. (Thanks to Paul at GeekPress for the link.)

Not World War III... But Suggested Steps?

I have to agree with Ted Galen Carpenter when he writes of the "War on Terror" that It Is Not Another World War. The numbers and scope just don't add up to that, at this time.

Having said that, I'll also note that I don't think much of what most "libertarians" have to say about terrorism and foreign policy these days. Contrary to their isolationist-leaning views, in late August Craig Biddle (an Objectivist) posted some ideas that I doubt you'll have heard or read from anyone else: How To Solve America's Terrorism Problem in 5 Easy Steps. He begins with favoring pulling out of Iraq, but not quite for the reasons that the Left is. Then his other four steps are ones not being actively discussed in the mainstream media, or even the Neo-Con media. Whether you agree with any of these ideas or not, they are eye-openers for sure... and you thought Bush, Rumsfeld... surely Cheney were hawkish!

My step #1 would be different... the US should announce its intentions to pull out of the UN (in say, 6 months time), give reasons why, and suggest that any countries that wish to join the US in a new multinational "roundtable of nations" can join us in setting up a new organziation that will only admit countries that meet certain basic minimums in areas such as democracy, defense of liberty and individual rights, free-trade, and capitalism. The US can certainly do better in these areas itself, but it and a few dozen other countries meet certain basic minimums, such that an organization to discuss global issues can make sense, if done right. But the UN (in addition to having member states run by dictators, etc.) has done it wrong, in so many ways, on such a scale, on so many issues, for so long... that it seems unrepairable at this point. More on that... I'll save for a future blog posting.

Health and Environment News from California

Two recent, short posts from Cato on legislation in California:

• The Great Wait, by Michael Tanner, which includes some good numbers on wait lists in countries with "single-payer" health care systems
• California Dreamin', by Patrick Michaels, about the new law in California "restricting the emissions of carbon dioxide to 1990 levels by the year 2020." Which will do a what exactly? Why, "According to scientists from the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, the amount of warming these reductions would prevent by the year 2060 is 0.05 degrees Celsius."

UPDATE on 9/15: Michaels today had another post with more interesting climate data and commentary on the new California law.

Funny Cat Videos Galore

My old links to funny cat videos from MetaCafe have gone dead, so here they are again, this time from YouTube:

• Funny Cats Collection #1
• Funny Cats Collection #2

Then here are two new ones:

• Funny Cats Collection #3
• Funny Cats Collection #4

Then here are two others:

• Cats don't like tape
• Cats that can talk

I especially like the final talking cat... no idea what she is saying though!

Memri Video About 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

MEMRI has created an impressive video, about the conspiracy theories that have come from Middle East media, political, and religious leaders about who was responsible for 9/11. It is narrated by actor Ron Silver, and is very well done. Even at 40 minutes, it is well worth your time to watch. Very interesting...

Khatami at Harvard is a Disgrace

Recently former Iranian "president" Mohammed Khatami gave