by the meltingpot: I like this

Now Reading!

Indeed, what is at work in the recent return of realism is the revenge of geography in the most old-fashioned sense. In the 18th and 19th centuries, before the arrival of political science as an academic specialty, geography was an honored, if not always formalized, discipline in which politics, culture, and economics were often conceived of in reference to the relief map. Thus, in the Victorian and Edwardian eras, mountains and the men who grow out of them were the first order of reality; ideas, however uplifting, were only the second.
And yet, to embrace geography is not to accept it as an implacable force against which humankind is powerless. Rather, it serves to qualify human freedom and choice with a modest acceptance of fate. This is all the more important today, because rather than eliminating the relevance of geography, globalization is reinforcing it. Mass communications and economic integration are weakening many states, exposing a Hobbesian world of small, fractious regions. Within them, local, ethnic, and religious sources of identity are reasserting themselves, and because they are anchored to specific terrains, they are best explained by reference to geography. Like the faults that determine earthquakes, the political future will be defined by conflict and instability with a similar geographic logic. The upheaval spawned by the ongoing economic crisis is increasing the relevance of geography even further, by weakening social orders and other creations of humankind, leaving the natural frontiers of the globe as the only restraint.
So we, too, need to return to the map, and particularly to what I call the “shatter zones” of Eurasia. We need to reclaim those thinkers who knew the landscape best. And we need to update their theories for the revenge of geography in our time.
Here is the link for the whole write up.

Now at 2nd place

My view is that relations between countries in the coming decades are most likely to reflect their cultural commitments, their cultural ties and antagonism with other countries rather than other factors. Quite obviously, power will continue to play a central role in global politics, as it always does. But usually there is something else behind conflicts. In the 18th century in Europe, the issues to a large extent involved questions of monarchy versus the emerging republican movements, first in America and then in France. In the 19th century, it involved states identifying themselves through nationalism. In the 20th century, ideology came to the fore, largely, but not exclusively, as a result of the Russian Revolution. We had fascism, communism and liberal democracy competing with each other. Well, that’s pretty much over. Liberal democracy has come to be accepted, in theory at least, around the world, if not always in practice. So the question really is what will be the central focus of global politics in the coming decades? My argument remains that cultural identities, antagonisms and affiliations will not only play a role, but play a major role in relations between states. The full interview is here.

This is the 3rd

Every citizen in the City of Richardson will be able to access 756 Kbps of internet connectivity for free, from anywhere in the city. They will be able to access the internet from their homes, schools, restaurants and parks using standard wi-fi connections which are now installed on almost every notebook computer. That is almost as fast as many so-called high speed broadband connections that one pays dearly for today, and several times faster than the various hotspots at your local coffee shops. And I should note that the tax-payers of the City of Richardson are not paying one penny for this, and in fact are going to see additional revenues as a benefit. ... At the beginning of this letter, I suggested that this would be one of the fastest worldwide rollouts of a technology ever seen. It was just 20 years ago that the first cellular systems were being built. The rollout for mesh wireless systems is going to make that look slow. There are several reasons I make this assertion. But they all center on the facts that installing mesh systems will be cheaper and easier than any previous system and the economics in both the developed and especially the developing world will be so radically compelling. Throw in the fact the any astute politician will want to be at the front of this parade (They will all want to say, "I was the man who helped bring free internet to everyone!") and the groundwork is laid for rapid deployment. In Richardson and elsewhere, MeshLinx is offering the basic infrastructure for free. This avoids all the time consuming, political budget battles in the cities. When a service is offered for free, much of the mandated competitive process is eliminated. Next is the low cost of installation of the system. As noted above, Richardson is a city of roughly 100,000 people living in 27.4 square miles. It will "only" cost about $2,000,000 today to lay the wireless blanket I mentioned above. It will cost a great deal less in the future, as MeshLinx is building the pods at a pace of 100 a month today. The maximum output of the US pilot assembly line is 500 a month. When the demand exceeds this (and it will in a very short time) discussions have been held to move volume production to China. Of course, the world will need tens of millions of pods. The cost for a pod will be a fraction of today's cost, with that installation number for a city like Richardson soon being half (or less) the cost of today. What does that $1 or 2 million get you? The infrastructure to be an internet connection, telephone, security, entertainment provider and a whole lot more company. As noted, it will get cheaper as the number of pods being made each month rises, thus lowering their costs dramatically. This technology does have scale. The cost of physically putting up a pod is not a large part of the equation, as you simply need to run a power line, attach a few bolts to a mount on the side of a building or light pole and then off to the next point. Think about the 40,000 homes and businesses in Richardson. If and (hopefully) over time when 10% decide to pay $50 a month for 10-20 Mbps high speed internet access you could see a revenue of $2.5 million a year just from internet access. Now add in all the other income possibilities (phone, entertainment, security and don't forget advertising revenue on the free service!). Think about your town or country. What would service like this be worth? If you are a small city that does not have high speed connections available, how many businesses that could bring jobs do not come your way because they need reliable communications for their work and their employees? If you are in a developing country, where internet access is difficult and expensive, it will open whole new vistas. Couple that with the various programs which want to give cheap laptops to kids in poor countries, and you could see significant social progress in a generation. Here is the link.

Thursday, May 25, 2006

I like this

I like the following comment (so long!) from this blog. I’m fairly regular to that blog but it’s the first time that I meet the commentator, JMC. I’m re-producing nearly half of the comment. If you like to read in full, here is the link.

___________________________
"When nativists and racists talk about preserving white american culture, what excatly are they talking about?..what is white culture? If we trace back cultural origins of white americans to their ancestors would they reflect anything of their contemporary decendants? It seems to me that white culture in america is really the shedding of cultural ties and taking new ones."I'm not David, and I'm certain he'll get to you, but, I do have some thoughts that might help as a result of my personal expeience at the center of the cultural hurricane. First some background:My mother was english(anglo-norman) and german(pensulvania dutch). My father was-God knows what, I never knew him-but there is no shortage of ignorant wankers wanting to"tell me what I am":black, hispanic, indian, whatever ancestry triggers anxiety in the observer of light tan skin. Lovely for UV protection, but makes individuality a bit opaque. Ethnicly I am of Eutropean decent, but it wasn't until I embraced my working-class roots and fried my dark brown hair punk blond that people actually see ME most of the time. Really, it's strange. My features-european/mediteranian/hispanic/god-knows are exactly the same, my speaking patterns-mostly coastal with a bit of British working class-though I get a bit toff understress, exactly the same. And my dress-subdued urban punk with a bit of goth, exactly the same, but now I'm blond, and, even though it's obviously fake, people are nicer to me. I'm open to any explainations for that one.Now to Matt O.'s questions about "white culture":Very perceptive. The "culture" specififcally being adopted is usually commerialism or rabid nationalism, both pathetic substitutes for ethnicity. Part of the problem is that, in the States, there seems to be a higher than normal level of confusion between ancestry, ethnicity and nationality- even amoung the "educated liberal" set. Briefly:Ancestry is who your genetic ancestors are. It includes genotype-your actual DNA, and phenotype, the DNA you express, or your appearance.Ethnicity is the cultural group your were raised by/ were influenced by and--most imprtantly--that you identify with.Nationality is the political/ economic govermment entity managing the country were you maintain citizenship. For most of human history people rarely traveled farther than five miles from their place of birth, so they usually married/mated with someone who looked more or less like them. Thus, for most of human history ancestry, ethnicity and nationality were the same thing. This is no longer the case.As to "white culture", I have always maintained there is no such thing. It was an invention of the wealthy landholders in early america who needed an excuse to say they were better than the Indians. Think about it; they came from an aristocratic system where they could always say they were better than the lower classes because of "breeding". And they certainly weren't going to walk their talk on "all men are created equal". What and admit they're better off because they have land and money?

by the meltingpot

Now Reading!

Now at 2nd place

This is the 3rd