The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time

Mark Haddon’s The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time is a novel told from the perspective of a bright autistic teenager. Haddon does an excellent job of putting you in the head of the troubled protagonist. Plus, it’s a very good story; once I was half way through, I couldn’t stop reading until I completed it. It’s the best novel I’ve read in years, and it’s of particular interest to programmers like me who have milder versions of the main character’s autistic tendencies.

Asteroid will miss

According to the latest observations, the asteroid collision probability is down to 0.0038% (1 in 26,000). That's a big relief.

I seem to be one of the few people who were actually worried it. A few days ago, I worried about the effects of the tsunami that would result from that asteroid plunging into the ocean.

Now, of course, the massive tsunami in Indonesia, Sri Lanka, etc. occurred instead. I should donate to some charity to assist the relief effort.

Killer asteroid

As if we didn't have enough to worry about (from Slashdot).

A recently rediscovered 400-meter Near-Earth Asteroid (NEA) is predicted to pass near the Earth on 13 April 2029. The flyby distance is uncertain and an Earth impact cannot yet be ruled out.
...
Today's impact monitoring results indicate that the impact probability for April 13, 2029 has risen to about 1.6%, which for an object of this size corresponds to a rating of 4 on the ten-point Torino Scale. Nevertheless, the odds against impact are still high, about 60 to 1,...

The impact energy would be 2000 megatons, 40 times larger than the most powerful nuclear weapon ever tested.

A 1% chance of a disaster of that magnitude is a major concern. Hopefully, subsequent measurements will rule out a collision.

The Civilization of the Middle Ages

In The Civilization of the Middle Ages, Norman Cantor discusses Western Europe from 300 AD to 1500 AD. He concentrates on intellectual and cultural history. For example, the chapters on the 11th and 12th centuries spend more time on legal, theological, and literary developments than on the Crusades and the Norman conquest of England.

Consequently, much of the book involves Christianity, which dominated medieval life. As an atheist who was brought up Jewish, I wasn’t that interested in subtleties such as Papal policies, monastic orders, or the integration of Aristotelian thought into Christianity. Still, you need to grasp those subjects if you want to appreciate the Middle Ages.

The rest of the book seemed more relevant. There’s a decent overview of the rise and decline of the various powers, though Cantor doesn’t go into as much detail as I’d like. He did a good job of portraying the various national powers: their internal structures, strengths & weaknesses, and how they evolved over time.

Other reviews characterize the book as the best single-volume treatment of the Middle Ages, and I’d go along with that. Its writing style and coherence are definitely a notch above most of the history books I’ve come across. Next, to fill in some gaps, I’ll search for books about the Middle Ages with a more narrow focus, geographically and chronologically.

Amazing crossword puzzle

The New York Times ran an amazing crossword puzzle on Election Day, 1996. There were two valid solutions, one claiming that the newly elected President was CLINTON, and the other claiming that it was BOBDOLE. (from Political Wire)

New websites

I've come across a few interesting websites recently.

Google Suggest -- A Google variation that autocompletes words as you type each letter, based on popular searches starting with those letters. Very cool (from Joel on Software).

Acronym Finder -- Type in an acronym, and see what it stands for.

Left2Right -- A group blog of high-quality political essays.

Majikthise -- A blog by a philosophy student.

The Scientist in the Crib

The Scientist in the Crib: What Early Learning Tells Us About the Mind describes research into how babies view the world and learn. The authors, Alison Gopnik, Andrew N. Meltzoff, Patricia K. Kuhl have researched the psychology and speech patterns of infants. The book describes experimental observations and what they reveal about the human mind.

For example, you’ve probably heard that Japanese adults cannot distinguish between the ‘r’ and ‘l’ sounds, just as other sounds that are distinct in certain languages sound the same to English speakers. Researchers tested whether Japanese babies could notice the difference between ‘r’ and ‘l’; the babies became more attentive when the sounds they heard changed. Seven-month old babies could tell the difference, and in fact could distinguish any two sounds that are considered different in any language. However, ten-month old Japanese babies could no longer hear any difference.

Results like these provide insight into basic questions of human nature. For example, newborns who are a less than a day old can imitate an adult who sticks at their tongue or opens their mouth. That action implies an understanding of the visual images the baby perceives and physical acts the baby performs. Many theories of infancy wouldn’t allow a response so soon.

The book’s main weakness is that the authors take too long to make some basic points. Its title refers to similarities between the ways babies and scientists learn about the world. That’s a reasonable analogy, but I didn’t need several pages explaining it. Since I’ve read several books on related topics, The Scientist in the Crib was written at too basic of a level for me. A less technical audience would appreciate it more.

More on Beinart

Here are some additional thoughts regarding Beinart’s New Republic editorial.

First of all, it’s clear that fighting terrorism and countering Muslim extremism is a serious concern. After 9/11, counter-terrorism efforts received more funding and attention, and almost everyone, including those on the left, agrees with that emphasis. The question is what further steps the US should take. What changes should occur in US policy?

Democratic policies would actually be more effective than those of George Bush. Democrats have sought more spending on domestic security measures than the Republicans have approved. Bush stonewalled the 9/11 commission and delayed implementing their suggestions. Major reform of the intelligence agencies is necessary, but the Bush administration’s main focus has been to suppress or purge people whose conclusions disagree with the Bush ideology.

Beinart frets that “when liberals talk about America's new era, the discussion is largely negative--against the Iraq war, against restrictions on civil liberties, against America's worsening reputation in the world”. Most liberals are perturbed that the US government holds suspected terrorists without trial and subjects some detainees to torture. And when the President is someone like Bill Clinton, who the world respects and admires, it’s a lot easier for the US to gain international support to help achieve the nation’s goals. Liberals, like any other political group, call attention to those policies they disagree with, and dismissing that reaction as negative doesn’t help the debate.

Obviously, the Iraqi war is the crux of the matter, for liberal criticism of Bush and for Beinart’s criticism of liberals. The liberals have always held that invading Iraq was a massive mistake, and subsequent events have proven them right. Though nobody is saddened by Saddam Hussein’s departure, life for most Iraqis has gotten much worse, while the US has suffered an enormous cost in fortune and lives. The suffering in Iraq has become a recruiting tool for Muslim extremists, while the enormous military burden of the war has weakened the US.

Liberals have a serious, coherent, and moral approach to deal with al Qaeda. Unfortunately, it’s a more difficult message to sell than the Republican position of a “war on terrorism”. However, on a topic as important as terrorism, the nation must choose the most effective policy, not the policy that gives you a concise slogan.

An Argument for a New Liberalism

Peter Beinart has a long article in The New Republic arguing the liberals should take a more hard-line stance towards Muslim terrorisms. Kevin Drum and other bloggers have discussed this article, which I didn’t find to be at all persuasive.

Beinart views the struggle against terrorism as the highest priority, comparable to the fight against Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. However, as horrible as 9/11 was, many other factors have killed a lot more Americans than terrorism has. Why should terrorism be viewed as more important than, say, providing health care to all Americans? Here’s Beinart’s perspective:

But there is little liberal passion to win the struggle against Al Qaeda--even though totalitarian Islam has killed thousands of Americans and aims to kill millions; and even though, if it gained power, its efforts to force every aspect of life into conformity with a barbaric interpretation of Islam would reign terror upon women, religious minorities, and anyone in the Muslim world with a thirst for modernity or freedom.

As Legal Fiction points out, liberals are serious about the dangers of Islamic fundamentalism, but disagree with the hardliners about the best means of doing so. Liberals have always been angry about the way women have been treated in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and other parts of the Muslim world. They wanted to reduce aid to Israel, pull US troops out of Saudi Arabia, and stop the sanctions against Iraq, in part to reduce the anti-Western attitudes than fan fundamentalism.

The main weakness of Beinart’s argument is that he conflates terrorism with the war against Iraq. He totally ignores the fact that, prior to the US invasion, Iraq had no connection to al Qaeda or anti-American terrorism. And he fails to comprehend the liberal argument that a US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq increases anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world and makes al Qaeda stronger.

Besides, Beinart spends paragraphs criticizing Michael Moore and MoveOn, but doesn’t make a single negative remark about George Bush. You can’t help wondering why any liberal would take his advice seriously.

Election perspectives from The Nation

In this week’s issue of The Nation, several people wrote essays about how Bush won the election and what happens next. Though much of the material was very familiar, many of the essays made some good points.

Van Jones talked about the way the Republican message had more emotional resonance than the Democrats. Danielle Allen and Beth Shulman separately explain that Democrats should highlight their values of equality, fairness, and opportunity. Robert Coles reported that even Democratic-leaning voters viewed Bush as more likeable and accessible than Kerry.

Michael Lind argues that “American progressivism, in its present form, is as obsolete in the twenty-first century as the agrarian populists were in the twentieth.” However, the issues he lists to prove his point – urban sprawl, alternative energy, opposition to biotech – are secondary and didn’t receive much attention during the campaign.

Jorge Ramos, Steve Cobble, and Joe Velasquez make a convincing case that Democrats should pay more attention to Hispanic voters, considering that 64,000 changed votes in the Southwest would have given Kerry the Presidency.

The essays didn’t contain anything profound, but they were still worth reading. Even though I’m trying to come to terms with the elections results, they are still depressing and bewildering.