The Oil Drum | Food Sovereignty and the Collapse of Nations

The Oil Drum | Food Sovereignty and the Collapse of Nations

Mr. Gaidar doesn’t seem to suggest that the collapse of his country happened because a large portion of the population moved from the countryside into the cities and stopped growing their own grain. Instead he seems to place the bulk of the blame for collapse on economics- on the inability of the Soviets to feed themselves not because there weren't enough people growing grain in that country but because of their inability to buy enough grain from other people to feed themselves because of decreasing oil and natural gas revenues. The idea that the Soviet collapse was due in part to the fact that the Soviet Union gave up on its capacity for food self sufficiency (food sovereignty) in an effort to pursue industrialization seems absent from his theory.

What are the implications for China?
Why the U.S. government would insist on the corrupted ethanol policy sending food price sky high?
What cause the high oil price?

From the oil drum

... plenty of lawyers go into politics, ... As a result politics tends to be framed by lawyer thinking, not engineer thinking. Politicians do not deal in facts. They deal in perception.

Well, we could expand the subjective of first sentence a little bit. Politics is not the only profession that cares more about perception than facts.

A Star Is Made - New York Times

A Star Is Made - New York Times

A star is made, but how to make? I need a manual.

Realclimate commented Freeman Dyson's global warming piece at NYB. I think the comment on "being contemptuous of bullshit" would be applicable to much broader issues.

4. Majority scientists are contemptuous of those in the minority who don’t believe in the dangers of climate change. I often find myself contemptuous of efforts to misrepresent science to a lay audience. The target audience of denialism is the lay audience, not scientists. It's made up to look like science, but it's PR. We have documented Lindzen’s tortured and twisted representation of the science to non-scientists here and here. If Lindzen had a credible argument to support his gut feeling (and apparently Dyson’s), I can promise that I for one would take it seriously. I’ve got kids at home whose future I worry about. If Lindzen were right, no one would be happier about that than me. But I do get contemptuous of bullshit.

It is clear that the primary season coverage is closer to American Idol than any serious discussion. Now I doubt All Things Considered might be something worse than propagada - propaganda dressed up as journalism. It becomes clear when they reported some stories I felt personally related to - the earthquake in China. In their latest blog entry, they repeated their hints that teachers' request of the students to stay killed them. They did not bother to point out that the teachers are just following the standard guidelines. Easily, someone defense them by pointing out that they were merely quoting others. It is so typical in All Things Considered. Hiding in the shelter of quoting others, they abondan the responsibilities of fact-checking. What to quote, what not to? This could so easily be manipulated.

They do have some nice pieces though.

American Idol vs. American President ?
Last night, I was watching the 12th season of America's Next President, well, I have to admit I scrolled to America's next top model during commercials, until American Idol began on Fox.

Which is a better TV show? The winner is in. America voted, "American Idol, you are safe!"

I won't be surprised if this year no candidate could win the popular votes against the Idol. Bush did not in 2004. Obama had a chance, but I won't bet on it.

Maybe it is healthy to keep voters' hope low.

Scientific American: The Expert Mind

Scientific American: The Expert Mind

Highlights
- Ericsson argues that what matters is not experience per se but "effortful study," which entails continually tackling challenges that lie just beyond one's competence.
- Simon coined a psychological law of his own, the 10-year rule, which states that it takes approximately a decade of heavy labor to master any field. Even child prodigies, such as Gauss in mathematics, Mozart in music and Bobby Fischer in chess, must have made an equivalent effort, perhaps by starting earlier and working harder than others.