I found an...interesting...tidbit in _The Logic of Japanese Politics_ by Curtis:

The most serious nuclear accident since Chernobyl occurred in Tokaimura in 1999. The accident happened while workers were transferring enriched uranium in stainless steel buckets, mixing the uranium by hand and then pouring it into a holding tank.

And you never realized that the Simpsons was a documentary on nuclear material handling techniques, did you?

This is from an e-mail to a friend. It is one of those things you write not for the recipient, but for yourself, but I'm posting it here for those of you who may find my views on this interesting (surely there is at least one of you out there).
_________
Thinking over our conversation this morning, I felt I should clarify a couple of points.

First, as to whether people are capable of change, I believe we are using different standards for what constitutes �change�. I do not believe that the fundamentals of a person�s personality are prone to change under most circumstances. I, for instance, am conceptually oriented, creative, inwardly focused, somewhat scattered, dislike chaos and dislike authority. These are factors that have been consistent in my personality since early childhood; I can remember incidents at ages 3 and 4 that are completely consistent with these personality traits. Now, what can change is behavior, i.e. the way I exhibit these traits, or the putting on of various masks� Several people who have met me in the last handful of years have observed that I exhibit as an extrovert, although I am still a fairly classic introvert (being with strangers, except ones I find very stimulating, drains me). The difference is more one of conscious behavior rather than a fundamental personality change. I have learned to function in situations that conflict with my own preferences: I act extroverted, but I am not. I can make a schedule, but I�m not an inherently organized person. My only weak spot is that I am still unable to understand why people care about down-to-earth details. To use a clich�d metaphor, I have trouble seeing the trees, I see only the forest�.trees are only interesting because they shape the forest.

That said, when I say �people don�t change,� not only do I mean that personality fundamentals don�t seem likely to change, but most people are unlikely to consciously focus on changing potentially problematic behaviors. When I�m in a situation that requires me to act in a manner inconsistent with my preferences, it may be somewhat stressful, but I am able to do it. The key is that it requires much more conscious effort than my innate behavior (sitting around thinking deep thoughts comes naturally; chatting about fung shui and horoscopes without being contemptuous does not, but I can manage that, too. But I have to think about it.). So, am I a �different� person, or am I just acting differently? Of course, one is judged on their behavior, not their inner heart, so perhaps people do �change� for all intents and purposes, yet I am more interested in the internal rather than the external manifestations� Geoff correctly points out that my personality type is the one most likely to enjoy introspection of this nature: I am my own best subject in this experiment called life�my perceptions are definitely filtered through this lens. Perhaps others really can change without conscious thought. On the other hand, perhaps the ability to bring these things to a conscious level helps me better shape my actions�

Of course, things such as severe trauma, injury, strokes, senility, chemical imbalances, etc. are likely to cause significant changes. C.S. Friedman (list of her books here: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-author=C.%20S.%20Friedman/104-6537346-1827952) and I once politely went round about on this topic. She is depressive, a fact clear in all of her books, which I adore � I�m a very cheerful person, but I love dark themes in literature � the irony, no? Friedman noted that when she was finally diagnosed and prescribed anti-depressants, it was as if her personality changed overnight. I'm not sure about that, though; I wonder if it was also her perception of herself that changed. My grandmother, during her slow descent into senility, became what I can only describe as even more herself. She was always fairly selfish and petulant, but as a younger woman she was largely able to mask this by displaying a variety of masks (good mother, caring nurse, etc.). The ability to put on masks declined with age, but her personality didn�t�. thankfully, she passed away before she completely lost her personality and memories. Many people say that even early senility causes a marked change in personality, but it may also be related to the slipping of the various masks that people wear. Same goes for positive changes�an acquaintance of mine recently completed his chemical engineering degree and now is working in that very lucrative field instead of waiting tables, as he had done for last few years. His personality seemed to blossom overnight, but did his personality fundamentally change, or did the extra boost of self-confidence simply help his �true� personality show through? Same for all of my law school acquaintances: I�d say law school has simply made them �more� who they were, boiled them down to the more essential core, stripped away some extraneous details without changing the fundamentals. What changes is the mask and the way they present to the world. Selfish, corrupt people become selfish, corrupt lawyers, no matter the mask they present to the world. People put too much reliance on masks when making judgments - Boy Scout leaders who enjoy child porn, MADD spokeswomen who drive drunk, the upstanding church-going man who frequents women of ill repute, the quiet neighbor who didn�t seem a bit like a serial killer - why is anyone surprised by these things? They�re practically clich�s. There are always signs. People just don�t see them. Masks make it hard to thin slice people, to believe intuitive snap judgments.

In _Blink_, Gladwell mentions a study that shows that doctors who exhibit concern and are respectful towards their patients are significantly less likely to be sued for malpractice regardless of skill level. Highly skilled doctors with poor bedside manners are much more likely to be sued. Something for all professionals to consider,

Read this the other day. Although the author seems perfectly nice, it rubbed me the wrong way....so I had to e-mail him a commentary on the flaws in both his understanding of the Star Wars universe as well as the problems in his free-market libertarian world view. I hate it when people base their arguments on a flawed analysis and incorrect data and end by concluding that their arguments are correct, Q.E.D. Below is the e-mail I sent to him:
________
Greetings. I just read and enjoyed your recent article, "What is the 'Dark Side' and Why Do Some People Choose It?", but I found it flawed in both the terms of the mythology of the Star Wars universe and the discussion of politics, law and economics.

First, your attempts to use the mythos of Star Wars to bolster your own political positions would have been more swaying had you correctly identified the nature of Anakin Skywalker's birth. In episode 1, Anakin's mother clearly indicates it was a case of immaculate conception. The exact quote from his mother is "There was no father, that I know of... I carried him, I gave him birth..." (Script available here: http://scripts.cgispy.com/newsboard.cgi?action=view&num=2&user=starwars1). I also find the claim that _immaculate conception_ leads to crime both unlikely and, if you're of a religious inclination, blasphemous. I cannot think of many cases of immaculate conception in humans...parthenogenesis in lower orders of animals notwithstanding, of course. Maybe Shmi just budded off little Anakin (pretty much impossible, though, as he's male (parthenogenesis produces female clones), unless the genetic makeup of the people in Star Wars differs significantly from that of humans - in that case, one could argue that copy error led to Anakin to the dark side. I'm voting copy error.), but I suspect Lucas is actually alluding to the Virgin Mary and Jesus. Using it to bolster a flimsy argument on the evils of single motherhood just doesn't work. Serious overreach. Truthfully, I found the entire mention of immaculate conception disconcerting, and I am surprised that you failed to identify the parallel between Christ and what is essentially a science fiction anti-Christ, i.e. Darth Vader, especially as you later went on to compare Darth Vader to Hitler.

Lucas does build his universe around many images and details from our history, but I perceive those to be details and images pillaged from and filtered through secondary sources such as other movies and books. I'm intrigued by your statement that, "In recent episodes he showed how an evil empire emerges from a constitutional republic via expanding mercantilist polices, bureaucracy, and political manipulation using images from Roman and British empires as well as Nazi Germany." I disagree with some of the implications of what causes a republic to become evil, but I'm going to give it some thought. Rome and Great Britain did not have constitutions, although the Weimar Republic did. I'd say that the parallels between Star Wars and Nazi Germany are the strongest.

What really doomed the Star Wars Republic was Jar Jar being allowed to vote in the Senate. I blame Jar Jar for the collapse of the Republic. In both the case of Rome and the Nazis, there were also individuals who strongly influenced the change in government structure (Augustus, Hitler). The British did countless vile things abroad, but they were fairly respectful of civil liberties _at home_ compared to other countries of the period (which weren't very respectful at all. Great Britain had the concept of mutual obligations between lords and vassals, whereas in other countries, such as Russia, duties flowed only upwards, vassal to lord, with lords owing their vassals nothing in return. I�m happy the US stems from English common law.), which is a large part of how England managed to avoid having a (successful) civil war or revolution, Roundheads aside. The Roundheads were basically the Puritans, and you know where they ended up.

Additionally, you over-generalized the link between single parenthood and crime. In addition to the marital status of the parents, there is also a strong correlation with socioeconomic class and education; that single parents tend to be at the lower end of the socioeconomic scale and thus face greater challenges does not imply a simple, causal connection between single parenthood and a life of crime. The socioeconomic class and education of the single parent also have a bearing on the matter, not single parenthood in and of itself, Mr. Thornton.

Now, on to your argument on the evils of government interference in the economy as explicated by the Star Wars universe. It was clearly stated in Episode 1 that, "The Republic doesn't exist out here," thus slavery was tolerated. This implies that Tatooine and many other planets exist outside the control of galactic law. We are agreed on the evils of slavery. On Earth, slavery is now universally recognized as jus cogens, i.e. violating the fundamental norms of international law (along with genocide), yet slavery is still rampant. In as much as you concluded that Mos Espa was ruled by organized crime, your conclusions were accurate in that organized crime is closely tied to slavery in this day and age. This is borne out by real life evidence, as the vast majority of human trafficking is carried out by organized crime groups. Slavery is most rampant in those places with poor law enforcement, which goes counter to your strongly anti-government interference argument. It is strongly driven by the economics of the individuals involved, and is one of the things that makes me question unbridled capitalism. Should the question of supply and demand be totally separate from the ethical and moral considerations of what is being supplied or demanded? I don't think so.

Are you in favor of organized crime, Mr. Thornton? I doubt it. Myself, I am happy to live in a country ruled by laws and a democratic government. Try living in a country that isn't; I have. Even the US could work much harder to eradicate the slavery taking place within its borders (the statistics on that are absolutely *shocking*). Ditto for the EU, Japan and other first world nations.

On the wider question of civil liberties, I generally do agree with your points. The Bill of Rights has taken quite a beating these last few years, no?

I assume you are of a libertarian bent, as you criticize politicians who are in favor of big government as well as cutting civil liberties, yet you implicitly support big business by criticizing attorneys general (yes, it is attorneyS general - attorney is the noun, general is the adjective. The phrase is confusing because if follows the French ordering of modifier following noun. I will concede that this is a picky point and both forms are now accepted, but attorneys general is preferable). You do realize, of course, that big business and lobbying are closely linked to big government and high tax rates, no? Large corporations are able to successfully lobby for tax cuts and other preferential treatment, thus shifting the burden to regular taxpayers. It is also not unheard of for a corporation to lobby for legislation in its favor, which goes against the thrust of your big government argument. (The EU seems slightly more resistant to corporate lobbying, at least in the arena of intellectual property protections, but the fact that approximately half the EU budget goes to agricultural subsidies makes it another example of big government tied to big business, I'd say). I would think that a libertarian would be against lobbying of this sort, as it goes against the principles of the free market. You are right, however, in your observations that many bureaucrats do nurture their own fiefdoms, leading to bureaucratic bloat. Some bureaucrats, however, do have good intentions, and not simply those too low on the rung to make a difference.

Assuming you are of a libertarian bent, perhaps you should stop to consider that Mills was not against all government interference and regulation per se. As I recall, Mills was not against protecting the environment, nor against regulating acts that could cause harm to others. Were I a betting woman, however, I'd bet you're more of a Smith man.

I found your random and unexplained attack on Joseph Stiglitz rather puzzling. I'd hardly consider him to be on the dark side, compared to other many other notables in his field. Stiglitz has made a number of arguments against globalization without social responsibility, although admittedly someone in favor of the uncontrolled free market would find these arguments somewhat odious. I would recommend his book, _Globalization and Its Discontents_, you may purchase it at the following URL: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393324397/qid=1115992496/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/104-6537346-1827952?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 Try visiting a third world country; I have. Perhaps the plight of the world's poor isn't your concern, but it is mine.

Side note, Hitler hardly excelled as a painter. His sense of perspective was drastically skewed, with his human figures standing eerily as tall as the surrounding buildings. He was either rejected by or flunked out of art school for this reason. Like many of his cronies (e.g. Eichmann, who was incapable of completing even vocational-technical training in engineering), he was a failed, bitter excuse of a man who relied on a narrow version nationalism to cement his power base. Nationalism is the fallback of the despot.

All thoughts here are my own and off the top of my head, aside from the Star Wars quotes, which I had to look up, Star Wars being much less my forte than international affairs. If you are curious as to the explicit sources of information supporting my views, I will be more than happy to provide you with additional information.

Geoff sent me a kitchen witch, which I absolutely adore:

Working thought: Extraneous words are vital to set mood precisely because they're extraneous.