The Great Litmus Test

So, in the news, Abbas is out and new attacks on Israel are in. I figured it would happen, but not this fast. I think the administration is still trying to pretend the road map isn't dead, but it would take a miracle to rescue it at this point. Now we've got another Arafat crony running the show there. I really don't see Arafat's crowd settling this thing. His crew is infamously corrupt, and I fear, growing further out of touch with Palestinian popular sentiment every day. Not to mention the fact that the US and Israel hate him with a passion and don't want to deal with him. In fact, I rather suspect he'd have lost power by now except for how strongly the US and Israel fight against him and the sympathy that this engenders in the Palestinian populace. And the way things stand now he has a death grip on the armed wing of the Palestinian Authority. As long as the US and Israel insist on dealing with the PA alone (not involving Hamas) and they maintain a level of pressure that leaves the PA unable to thouroughly reform itself this conflict will go nowhere.

Also in the news, Bush asks for a boatload of money for Iraq. I think this is a very good idea, but agree with various Democratic congress-people (including our friend Russ) that he needs to be made to suffer for it. If he is not willing to admit to any mistakes, if he is not willing to compromise on his tax cuts to fund it, if he is not willing to let Congress have more say on how it is spent, they need to reject this request. There is a column on tompaine.com of moderate value that contains a quote that I think captures the brilliance of Rove's media strategy: "The genius of the new Bush Speak is to fudge all substantive distinctions, on the assumption that the American people won't notice what you are saying as long as you get the photo op right." It's the ultimate statement of style over substance, and it has worked beautifully so far. Congress has an opportunity to force the administration to deal in substance or to see their plans suffer. If indeed they choose to pass up the funding to avoid substantive discussion of the issues, it would truly be a tragedy for Iraq. However, I don't think they can afford to do that, and I don't think they will. Congress, press them hard while you have the chance.

But all of that is not what I want to write about tonight. I wanted to clearly delineate why I will not vote for any Democratic candidate who voted for the resolution allowing George Bush to go to war with Iraq. It's late already, so I'm going to keep this short and to the point. When this vote came up in October of 2002 it had been known for a year that the Bush administration was angling to go to war with Iraq. Rumsfeld had set up a planning committee to prepare for this war within weeks of the 9/11 and had been working to position the US for this war despite a complete lack of evidence tying Saddam to the attack or demonstrating any substantive risk posed by Iraq to the US. When this vote came up the doctrine of preemtive warfare had been circulated to the public and the administration's support for it was known. When this vote came up it was known that our allies were reluctant at best and that the administration planned to use this resolution in an effort to blackmail the UN into agreeing to the war. When this vote came up it was known that only the most sketchy of evidence existed to justify a war on Iraq. When this vote came up it was known that the administration was refusing to disclose any plans for dealing with the aftermath of the conflict and offered only the most vague details on the costs of it.

So why did the Democratic party decide to support the resolution? Because they thought getting it off table would help them in the mid-term elections. Here we are discussion the most important of political issues, whether or not to go to war, and the Democratic party was busy playing politics. Many of those who voted for the resolution expressed strong doubts and concerns about where the adminstration was headed and how they would make use of the resolution. But they voted for it anyway. This is a level of disconnect that I simply cannot fathom. Why do you bother to try to attain a position of power if not to have some say on an issue of this critical importance? I cannot but conclude that the Democratic party and those members of it who supported the resolution are so lost in their pursuit of power that they have forgotten the noble pursuits that led them into politics in the first place. This was an act of the most extreme cynicism and disdain for their appointed duties.

I understand the importance of politics and compromise and playing the game to achieve your goals. But this goes far beyond that. This was a matter of the most vital moral and political importance. That is not a time for playing games. It was unconscienable for the Democrats to view going to war as a matter of political expediency.

And to top it off, it didn't even work. The Democrats lost out on the mid-term elections because people were rallying behind Bush's war. Even having voted for the war they could not rightfully claim they were stronger proponents of it than the Republicans, many of whom voted for the war, not as a matter of politics, but because they actually believed in it. It was a stupid idea, and I believe I said so from the beginning. Signing on to the President's anti-terror agenda cannot help the Democrats. It simply gives these policies their endorsement and strengthens the position on this critical issue of the Republicans, from whom these policies originated in the first place.

And so I cannot in good conscience ever again support any Democratic politician who supported or voted for that resolution, and will not, even should the cost be a Republican victory. This goes beyond a matter of disagreeing on policy, as I disagree with the Republicans. It is a betrayal of everything our political system should be about. I will not stand for it.

Article: Busy News Day

Lots of interesting stuff today. This whole episode of going back to the UN for military and financial support is really fueling my Bush administration split conspiracy theory. According to stories floating around, Powell finally decided to make a move, and according to a story in the Milwaukee Journal last week he's got Karl Rove on his side, and this story shows the Joint Chiefs and Condi Rice lining up with him as well. That's a coalition that could take on the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz axis head-to-head. Interesting stuff... Of course Wolfowitz says (paraphrasing, I heard this on the radio) this is not a case of the US changing our position on UN involvement, it's that the UN has decided thaFt backing up the US is the right thing to do. Huh? It was clearly the US who initiated this proposal, and the UN still ain't buyin unless the US makes substantive concessions to the UN.

Elsewhere, Abbas continues to play his one-note symphony ("do what I tell you or I'll take my ball and go home") for the Palestinian Authority. There is incentive enough for both sides to give it a shot, but I don't think Arafat intends to yield any real power, and Abbas has little room to negotiate without losing his US and Israeli endorsement (and with it his entire reason for holding office). They'll try to work things out for a while, it will collapse, and the roadmap will be officially over.

And finally, CSM mentions a new reality TV show coming out, as if we haven't had enough of them. But wait, this one, called "K-Street" is about political lobbyists. It's a bizarre, but intriguing idea, particularly considering it is produced by the brilliant writer/producer/director Steven Soderbergh. The bad news? It's an HBO exclusive.

Background: The Neoconservatives

The Christian Science Monitor has an extremely nice summary of the history, ideals, and key players of the neocon movement. I found it very informative as I see and hear this term thrown around a lot but with little explanation of what it means. I was fascinated to learn that the neocon movement started with a bunch of Jewish liberals in the 60's and 70's who were born again into the right.

Article: Sizing up Bush for 2004

The Economist has this article in its most recent edition evaluating some of the successes and failures of the Bush adminsistration, which makes reelection anything but a foregone conclusion. The article does note that Bush certainly has one thing going for him (a lot of one thing, actually): money.

On the Horizon: Even Safer Tobacco?

Star Scientific appears to be a company committed to producing low-carcinogenic tobacco products. They were recently in the news because the FDA has refused to regulate their upcoming product Avira tobacco lozenge. The company claims that this lozenge, as well as their moist and dry snuff, will have nitrosamine 'levels that are extremely low, even when measured in “parts per billion”'. My understanding is that Snus has levels around 3 parts per million. Perhaps we will end up having even safer alternatives to Snus if the price is right. I also commend them for trying to make low carcinogen cigarettes. These types of products have been too long in coming and are likely to save our health care system significant amounts of money if they come into general use.

Article: The Educated Terrorists

In a very interesting article in CSM (can you tell we like this paper?), it appears that terrorists and suicide bombers may not be the poor, uneducated wretches that many make them out to be. According to the article, only 13% of Palestinian suicide bombers came from poor families, whereas some 32% of the Palestinian population in a similar age group were considered poor. Furthermore, virtually all of these bombers had at least finished primary school. This reminds me of some of our previous discussions regarding the origins of revolt (see Discussion: The Revolutionary Threshold beginning 5-30-03). I believe we came to the conclusion that the poor and uneducated were unlikely to revolt against the status quo. On the other hand, the middle class or elites would have the time, money, and knowledge to be the key players in leading a revolt to change the economic and social circumstances. Perhaps this is reflected in the background of the suicide bombers. The more they know, the more they detest the occupation of Palestine. I can't say I blame them for their feelings, although I find it impossible to condone their actions against civilians (no more than I would condone Israel's extrajudicial executions of both suspected militants and innocent bystanders).

Article: Speak For Yourself

CSM has another great editorial today. Jonathan Rowe discusses the inability or unwillingness of politicians to write their own speeches. This is an important point for me. It has become increasingly difficult to get a decent read on politicians as it has become easier to avoid ever speaking without a script, and moreover, a script they did not personally write. The Bush administration in particular has demonstrated how effectively this can be done. When you're never able to actually hear a person speak their own words or read a person's writing it is very difficult to really know what you're voting for. This was raised in an offhand way during the campaign with the accusations that W was not very intellectual. The way this manifests itself is that since everything he says comes from someone else's writing he is very vulnerable to being redirected, as he has been by the neo-con clique. This bothered me about Gore as well. I know Gore has, or at least used to have, things to say; he had some thoughtful and intelligent positions prior to serving as VP. But during the campaign it seemed he turned over the keys to the campaign bus to his political consultants. In my opinion the primary objective of debates and interviews should be to get the candidates speaking on issues of substance for which they don't have a prepared script. If I want to know their official positions I can read their websites, what I want is a chance to get a read on the raw, unfiltered person who is asking for my vote.

In rather more significant news, Britney Spears says she would not kiss any woman but Madonna. Also mentions she does not have orgies during her spare time and that she believes "we should just trust our President in every decision he makes and we should just support that." God Bless America.

Today's Sign of the Apocalypse: George Bush, Action Hero

I don't know what's more wrong, that someone made this thing, or that people can't get enough of them..

Discussion: But there's more

You have got to be kidding me:
"America is a nation that understands its responsibilities and keeps its word. And we will honor our word to the people of Iraq and those in the Middle East who yearn for freedom."

It's sad that Americans are really that ignorant of recent history that President Bush can get away with that line. But most Iraqis still remember this one: "Sure, go ahead and revolt against Saddam. We support you 100%. Our troops will be right behind you..."

Discussion: Bush Wisdom

From today's speech to the American Legion Convention in St. Louis, discussing national security and the situation in Iraq: "Our recent military operations have included almost 200 raids, netting more than 1,100 detainees."

Mr. President, are you sure that is net, and not gross?

Discussion: Undermining Abbas

No matter how many angles I look at the Israel/Palestine conflict from, it seems I always come back to the conclusion that the Israeli government is completely divorced from reality. Hamas, a group that I generally regard as being politically astute, made a serious error with their last bus bombing. By the brutal calculus of this conflict, they were entitled to some degree of retaliation after Israel continued their assassinations after Hamas agreed to a cease-fire. However, it seemed they had accomplished that in a proportional way after a couple of minor bombing attacks that only killed 2-3 people. Then they followed that up with an attack killing a score of people and wounding scores more. It was obviously out of scale and not justified, and necessarily would trigger a response from Israel. I wonder if the last assassination did some real damage to Hamas' leadership, as the man assassinated was regarded as a leader in the political side of things and one of the architects of the cease-fire. His death, and the manner of it, may have pushed control into the hands of more militant and aggressive elements of the organization. I hope this is not the case, as the apparent mainstreaming and politicization of Hamas over the last 3-5 years has offered, I believe, the best opportunity for a resolution to this conflict.

In any case, it is the current response of Israel that concerns me. From the beginning of the roadmap they have insisted that Abbas not work cooperatively with Hamas to disarm them, but that he aggressively dismantle the organization. And now they are demanding this in stronger terms and they are making an effort to do it themselves at the same time. This is having the effect of causing a rebellion within the Palestinian Authority against Abbas as they do not want to participate in this action under these terms, and maybe not under any terms. Abbas now has the two great pillars of political power in Palestine, Arafat's faction of the PA and Hamas, both set against him, with Israel, backed on this matter by the US, not willing to budge on anything. Abbas was hand-picked to lead the Palestinians by Israel and the US. He was elected as Prime Minister by the Palestinian parliament simply because the US and Israel insisted that no negotiations could take place unless this was done. He has no military or police power to speak of, and no clear political mandate from the Palestinian people. He has no tools with which to combat Arafat's faction, which controls what little military capability the PA has, nor Hamas which has their own military force. Alienating him from these two groups leaves him as a powerless figurehead. And yet that is what Israel appears to be intent on doing. It strikes me as bizarre that they would set up their own chosen leader of the Palestinians for such prominent failure. They cannot be so blind as to not see what they are doing, and yet I can figure no rational reason for them to do it...

Hamas, I believe, is the key to this whole situation. I do not believe that a real resolution can be negotiated by Palestinians in a position of complete weakness, as Abbas is. Nor without strong support from the public and the militant groups, which I don't necessarily think Abbas has. Hamas has strength and has the support of a Palestinian public sick to death of feeling powerless and disenfranchised for that reason. Despite massive, desperate, efforts by the Israeli military to put Hamas out of business they remain as dangerous as ever. They have, in recent years, become more involved in humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people, running hospitals and schools and the like. And they have backed off their initial stated goal (the complete destruction of Isreal) and become more willing to participate in negotiations. They are the foremost militant organization, and their word would carry substantially more weight with the other militants than does Abbas. I believe they have all the necessary elements to negotiate a real settlement with Israel. They have the strength to negotiate as equals, the support to bring the public on board and the power and creditibility to make the other militants fall in line. The US needs to insist that they be brought to the negotiating table, rather than setting up Abbas for obvious failure by insisting he do battle with them. Unfortunately our over-the-top rhetoric against terrorism makes this impossible, and will doom any efforts by the Bush administration to resolve this conflict.

Discussion: International Plea Bargaining

I had similar thoughts when I heard about the push to prosecute Mr. Taylor after getting him out of Liberia. I worry, however, that letting him go free could also set a bad precedent. If the punishment does not fit the crime, are we in danger of partially condoning Taylor's past actions? Furthermore, might this send a message to other would-be dictators and tyrants that detestable actions on their part are not likely to be checked by the international community? I can clearly see the argument both ways and confess that I am undecided on the issue.

Commentary: God Bless the U.S. of A.

Boys,
I thought you might enjoy this commentary by Roy Moore, Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. It appeared in today's Wall Street Journal. I fail to see how Thompson's ruling bans the acknowledgment of God in the public sector. It simply calls for neutrality, neither acknowledging nor disavowing God. Would Mr. Moore like it if he walked into a public building with a monument stating that God is a big fat hoax?

COMMENTARY

In God I Trust

By ROY S. MOORE

MONTGOMERY, Ala. -- The battle over the Ten Commandments monument I brought into Alabama's Supreme Court is not about a monument and not about politics. (The battle is not even about religion, a term defined by our Founders as "the duty we owe to our creator and the manner for discharging it.") Federal Judge Myron Thompson, who ordered the monument's removal, and I are in perfect agreement on the fact that the issue in this case is: "Can the state acknowledge God?"

Those were the precise words used by Judge Thompson in his closing remarks in open court. Today, I argue for the rule of law, and against any unilateral declaration of a judge to ban the acknowledgment of God in the public sector.

We must acknowledge God in the public sector because the state constitution explicitly requires us to do so. The Alabama Constitution specifically invokes "the favor and guidance of Almighty God" as the basis for our laws and justice system. As the chief justice of the state's supreme court I am entrusted with the sacred duty to uphold the state's constitution. I have taken an oath before God and man to do such, and I will not waver from that commitment.

By telling the state of Alabama that it may not acknowledge God, Judge Thompson effectively dismantled the justice system of the state. Judge Thompson never declared the Alabama Constitution unconstitutional, but the essence of his ruling was to prohibit judicial officers from obeying the very constitution they are sworn to uphold. In so doing, Judge Thompson and all who supported his order, violated the rule of law.

Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor and my fellow justices have argued that they must act to remove the monument to preserve the rule of law. But the precise opposite is true: Article VI of the Constitution makes explicitly clear that the Constitution, and the laws made pursuant to it, are "the supreme Law of the Land." Judge Thompson and the judges of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals have all sworn oaths which bind them to support the Constitution as it is written -- not as they would personally prefer it to be written.

By subjugating the people of Alabama to the unconstitutional edict by Judge Thompson, that public officials may not acknowledge God, the attorney general and my colleagues have made the fiat opinion of a judge supreme over the text of the Constitution. While agreeing with me that the Constitution is supreme, and that the opinion of Judge Thompson was contrary to the Constitution, the attorney general has argued that he must follow an order he himself believes to be in direct violation of the supreme law of the land.

One of the great influences on the Founding Fathers, common law sage William Blackstone, once pointed out that judges do not make laws, they interpret them. No judge has the authority to impose his will on the people of a state, and no judge has the constitutional authority to forbid public officials from acknowledging the same God specifically mentioned in the charter documents of our nation, the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution.

My decision to disregard the unlawful order of the federal judge was not civil disobedience, but the lawful response of the highest judicial officer of the state to his oath of office. Had the judge declared the 13th Amendment prohibition on involuntary slavery to be illegal, or ordered the churches of my state burned to the ground, there would be little question in the minds of the people of Alabama and the U.S. that such actions should be ignored as unconstitutional and beyond the legitimate scope of a judge's authority. Judge Thompson's decision to unilaterally void the duties of elected officials under the state constitution and to prohibit judges from acknowledging God is equally unlawful.

For half a century the fanciful tailors of revisionist jurisprudence have been working to strip the public sector naked of every vestige of God and morality. They have done so based on fake readings and inconsistent applications of the First Amendment. They have said it is all right for the U.S. Supreme Court to publicly place the Ten Commandments on its walls, for Congress to open in prayer and for state capitols to have chaplains -- as long as the words and ideas communicated by such do not really mean what they purport to communicate. They have trotted out before the public using words never mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, like "separation of church and state," to advocate, not the legitimate jurisdictional separation between the church and state, but the illegitimate separation of God and state.

The First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It does not take a constitutional scholar to recognize that I am not Congress, and no law has been passed. Nevertheless, Judge Thompson's order states that the acknowledgment of God crosses the line between the permissible and the impermissible and that to acknowledge God is to violate the Constitution.

Not only does Judge Thompson put himself above the law, but above God, as well. I say enough is enough. We must "dare defend our rights" as Alabama's state motto declares. No judge or man can dictate what we believe or in whom we believe. The Ninth and 10th Amendments are not a part of the Constitution simply to make the Bill of Rights a round number. The Ninth Amendment secured our right as a people. The 10th guaranteed our right as a sovereign state. Those are the rules of law.


Mr. Moore is the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama.

News: A (Mixed) Blow to the Digital Rights Movement

As Findlaw reports here, the California Supreme Court reversed the state Court of Appeals decision that lifted an injunction against posting the DeCSS software because it clashed with the First Amendment. The California Supreme Court decision, which may be found here, isn't quite as bad as the Findlaw article makes it sound. The court found that, assuming the injunction was properly issued, it would not violate the free speech protections in the Constitution, but remanded to the Court of Appeals to conduct a more rigorous inquiry.

Discussion: International Plea Bargaining

There's an interesting diplomatic, legal, and ethical question raised in this CS Monitor editorial regarding Charles Taylor. The editorial advocates for Taylor's prosecution for war crimes, primarily on the grounds that not doing so sets a bad precedent and that his continued presence in the region will hinder rebuilding in Liberia. Personally, I feel that pursuing prosecution against Taylor would itself set a bad precedent. Taylor's exile in Nigeria was, after all, arranged at the urging of the US, the UN, the African Union, and ECOWAS. I see it as a form of international plea bargaining. It was critical to foreign intervention that outside forces come in as peace keepers and not as agents of regime change as the US was in Afghanistan and Iraq. The support did not exist to mount that sort of aggressive operation. In order to create the necessary environment to end the conflict, this offer of safe haven was extended to Taylor, with full knowledge of the charges against him. This strikes me as an important tool in the arsenal of the international institutions in their efforts to make and enforce peace. Prosecuting Taylor after he agreed to the terms set out would effectively remove this option for future interventions. It is clear that the exact details of the offer were never hammered out, nor does it appear the deal ever given any legal force. There is still room to negotiate exactly what the terms are, with regards to Taylor's freedom of movement and his contact with former associates. I think there are steps that can and should be taken to make the conditions of his stay in Nigeria more restrictive. But to my mind it is more important that the basic terms of the deal are upheld than it is that Taylor is brought to justice.

Discussion: Insert Lame One-Liner Here

"If Arnold is elected, you know who I'd feel sorry for? The people on death row. Imagine, you're about to be executed, the governor calls, you think it's your reprieve, and you hear 'Hasta la vista, baby.'" —Jay Leno

Discussion: Insert Lame One-Liner Here

I hope Arnold wins so he can kick the asses of all those evil terminator robots from the future who are trying to purge our humanity. Of course, he'll have his work cut our for him. The Bush administration is full of them.

Article: Lessig As Presidential Moderator

This past week, Dennis Kucinich followed Howard Dean as a guest writer on Larry Lessig's blog. I think he did a good job with his posts. I was most impressed by the one regarding John Gilmore (founder of the EFF) and his airport experiences. Where Dean's stuff looked more or less like he could have cross-posted the same material anywhere, Kucinich clearly took the time to at least poke around Lessig's site and see what it's about. And his comments on the GPL reveal surprising cluefulness as well. It's too bad he hasn't been able to generate the same sort of buzz that Dean has..

Article: Insert Lame One-Liner Here

I'm sure this will be all over the news, but here's the BBC story on Arnold signing Warren Buffet on as part of his economic team. I have two reactions to this. First is that Arnold Schwarzenegger will be the next governor of California. He was already the front-runner, simply by means of his name recognition, tremendous free publicity, and the money he has to throw behind his campaign. This gives him a huge boost in legitimacy. Buffett is a fricking genious, and if this is the calibre of people that Arnold will have working for him, that will serve to reassure many of his doubters. Buffett directly addresses the biggest criticism that has been leveled at Scharzenegger, his inexperience in handling California's economy (or the "World's Fifth Biggest Economy" as people have decided to officially title it now).

My second reaction is that I don't think I will mind if Arnold does win. Arnold's positions have already been widely publicized, and it is clear that he is pretty moderate. This week's TIME Magazine featured a cover story on Schwarzenegger and I was impressed. He is pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control, clearly not part of the religious right, and clearly not a fan of the neo-con brain-trust. My biggest worry regarding him was that he is, after all, a Republican and who knows who he would bring to office with him. Take George W Bush, for instance. Obviously the guy is a moron, and a born-again Christian, but on his own I don't think he would be nearly as offensive as his administration has turned out to be. The problem is that he filled his staff with folks from a radical faction of the extreme right. Buffett is a moderate, a Democrat, and a very smart person for whom I have a great deal of respect. That reassures me considerably about Arnold. It is possible they are trying to use him the way Colin Powell was used. But I think Buffett would not fall into that. Buffett is not a team-player like Powell. He is fiercely independent and not easily used by anybody.

When this whole political mess blew up I was quite cynical about Arnold. My only political association with him was when we worked as the fitness advisor or some such thing for Reagan/Bush. That and the obvious parallels to Reagan gave a me negative gut reaction to the idea. Now I'm seeing more parallels to Jesse Ventura, of whom (and I know I'm in the minority on this) I am an admirer. Who knows, maybe this thing will work out for the best. And if not, well, Arnold being an immigrant, at least we don't have to worry about him running for President.

Article: Still Afraid of the Dark-Skinned Savages

There is a fanastic editorial on CSM today. I think people should be beaten over the head with this on a daily basis. I'm frequently disgusted about how dehumanizing coverage of 3rd world conflicts is, particularly when compared with the sickenly melodramatic treatment that disasters in industrial nations get. I went a few rounds over this issue not so long ago regarding the appalling coverage of the Nigerian beauty pageant riots...

Speech: Al Gore

Al Gore gave a recent speech to MoveOn.org that echoes many of the observations by Kwiatkowski. One of his main points is a lack of checks and balances towards the executive branch. In short, he claims that a groupthink (to use Kwiatkowski's language) has maintained dominance over policy formation, excluding the entirety of information at hand and a healthy discussion of policy. I also can't help but see further parallels with the Johnson administrations policy that sucked us into the Vietnam war without full consideration of the facts at hand and the consequences of policy decisions. I highly recommend an account of this by H.R. McMaster in "Dereliction of Duty". It shows just how far an administration may go to maintain its ideology in the face of evidence that would dictate otherwise. It also shows how both the Congress and the American people were left out of the decision making process leading to Vietnam.

Article: Step Right Up to the Mic

I think we've got a volunteer for the next Senate hearing. Air Force Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski is a recently retired Pentagon insider. She wrote this damning account of the culture this administration has instilled there and its role in the funky intel reports we heard running up to the war.

Article: More On the Administration

Apparently I'm not the only one with the feeling that all is not well in the inner sanctum of the Bush administration. This article puts a lot of focus on Condi Rice, who has been mostly MIA for the last few months...

Article: It's Official

Powell will not stick around for a second term. No great shock there... At least Gingrich will be happy.

Discussion: Congressional Committee Records
Discussion: Unified Front Crumbling?

I was able to catch part of the hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with Paul Wolfowitz regarding reources for the reconstruction of Iraq. Although there is some sentiment against Real, I would highly recommend viewing the Senators' questioning of Wolfowitz and others in the C-span video. These discussions are not on the Senate Foreign Relations website because they are not scripted, yet I found them very informative and interesting. Note that the questioning starts at 1:16:00 if you watch the video clip.

One very common them was evident from the questioning. Both Republican and Democratic Senators were very concerned that Congress and the American people are not being informed of the sacrifice needed for reconstruction of Iraq. The senators were very upset that there was not even a request for a conservative estimate of reconstruction costs in the 2004 budget which are likely to be substantial. In addition to financial sacrifice, there were complaints that the duration of stay of our troops and the sacrifice of American soldiers are not being adequately explained. It seems the senators are very concerned about losing the support of the American public over time, and this could prove disastrous for an effort that we must be tied into for the long haul. This was some of the most intense grilling of these individuals (especially Wolfowitz) that I have seen to date and suggests to me that Congress has been left largely out of the loop in the Iraq process.

I thought you guys might also be particularly interested in the comments of two senators. The first is from D-Chris Dodd from Connecticut. He pointed out that the outlined chain of command for Iraq proceeds from the President to the Sec of Def to Bremer. Notably absent, he pointed out, was the Sec of State. I found this partcularly interesting in light of Joe's comments of the Bush/neo-con attacks on Powell. It seems that the Sec of State has been left out of the command and decision making structure for Iraq with the exception of an advisory role to the President on the NSC. Dodd was quite concerned because the military is essentially running the show, and they are not likely the best qualified to address issues that would be better handled by the State Dept. While this may be a more efficient command structure, it leaves out the expertise of the State Dept. I also wonder if it isn't due to the likelihood of Powell stepping down after Bush's current term.

The second comes from our beloved Russ Feingold. Wolfowitz claimed in his statement that "In fact, the battle to secure the peace in Iraq is now the central battle in the global war on terror". Feingold was very concerned that we are being misled and that American resources are not effectively being used in the "war on terrorism". Given the questionable links between Iraq and terrorist organizations, Feingold argued that our efforts should be focused heavily on areas such as Afghanistan and eastern Africa where the majority of the terrorists are.

Very interesting stuff... there are definitely some pissed off Senators out there.

Odds'n'Ends: /. Post of the Week

In a discussion relating to UK radio spectrum regulations that meandered onto the subject of the enforcement tactics used for the mandatory British TV licensing scheme:

---

Re:Government-controlled media (Score:4, Funny)
by misterpies (632880) on Friday August 01, @12:06PM (#6588847)

They sent an inspector to me too, but of course I was at work. So I wrote back saying they were welcome to inspect our place, but would they mind visiting after 6pm or on weekends since... surprise surprise, they never called back. I guess they're not _that_ keen...

At the time though I felt a twinge of sympathy for Saddam Hussein. The British government kept telling me that it knew I had banned equipment (an unlicensed TV set). When I denied this they told me they knew I was lying and were going to send in inspectors. And when I offered to cooperate with the inspectors (though on my terms - I'll be damned if I'll be subject to unannounced inspections of my home at any time of the day or night - though Saddam even agreed to that), they pulled them out.

Luckily for me the analogy stops there. Otherwise my flat would be occupied by government agents triumphantly brandishing my laptop as proof that I had a mobile TV-development laboratory that could be turned into a fully functioning device within 45 minutes by the addition of a simple TV tuner card, which they had documentary evidence that I was trying to purchase from Niger...

---

Nice...

Discussion: Unified Front Crumbling?

The futures market on terrorism? I was going to add this one to my Roth until it blew up in the press.

Discussion: Gingrich In Depth

Just a brief reply, and then I suggest we let this issue rest, as there really are more interesting matters to discuss. My main point previously was to suggest that Gingrich's essay raises some very interesting questions about how "disciplined" the State Dept or other areas of the executive branch should be to the president. I am by no means putting Gingrich on a pedestal, but I was intrigued by his main argument. Like many argumentative articles in FP, this was not meant to be an in depth analysis of the issue from all sides. We will have to wait for replies in the "Letters to the Editor" section of the next issue (and I'm sure there will be many). There is a certain danger, I think, in quickly dismissing someone simply because of disagreements on a few other statements that were a small part of the article. While the article would have been better written without such comments, there are nonetheless intriguing questions raised by Gingrich's main point. In particular, just how much power and control should the president have over the executive branch? Does our president, in general, hold too much sway over domestic and international issues? Has the amount of "power" (not yet defined) of the presidency changed over time and how?

Discussion: Unified Front Crumbling?

Adding fuel to my theories that the tight coupling between the political elements (ie Rove and his people) and the neo-con power center of the adminstration are not on the best speaking terms has been the recent incident over the market on terror. The program, as I understand it, had some merit, and I don't doubt that Rove could have sold it. But it is obvious that nobody with an ounce of political cluefulness was aware of its existence. It is unclear how aware the upper tier of the neo-con leadership was of the program, but it was proposed by John Poindexter, one of their favorite sons, and as a part of the TIA, one of their pet projects.

The basic idea was sound. DARPA was to hand-pick 1000 people to participate, presumably middle-east experts, terror experts, and other knowledgeable folk, and allow them to put their money where their mouth was. It seems a useful manner in which to sort out the wide variety of opinions on issues of great importance to the country, providing DARPA with a constantly updated reading not only on the opinions of the community of experts, but also on their confidence level in those opinions.

While the idea was fine, the political handling of it was a complete disaster. It was kept secret from everyone, including Congress, and, by all reports, most of the administration, despite the fact that it required the participation of 1000 people not directly affiliated with the government. They had to know that someone would leak the existence of the project. By allowing this to happen without first publicly spinning the program themselves they allowed their political enemies to brand it however they wished. Which they did quite effectively. Once this hit the public the goals and mechanisms of the system were completely lost and most people were left scratching their heads over the absurdity of the idea. In the /. discussion of it most people seemed to think it was a honeypot, designed to lure terrorists into trying to make money from their attacks. They thought DARPA would watch for sudden influxes of money into particular attack predictions and use this to first thwart the attack, then track down where the money came from and apprehend the terrorists.

If someone who were politically shrewd (ie Rove) had been aware of the program the results could have been quite different. First thing would be to remove the direct use of money on the market. Allocate some bogus bucks to the participants then come up with a system to reward the winning players with prestige or government grants for their research. The idea of people directly profiting from disastrous attacks on the US is simply too perverse to survive public scrutiny. The next thing would be to present it to the public on their own terms, spinning it not as a "market on terror", but as an interactive system by which to mine the talent and expertise of the American academics and intellectuals. It could even serve as an answer to the common criticism of the administration as being too closetted and isolated. Certainly there would still be those who would have tried to brand it as a market on terror, but the administration has shown a great talent for branding, and I think their sales pitch would have stuck.

In any case this serves to reinforce my perception that the neo-cons have tired of sharing power. As I stated previously, the presence of Rove and Powell and the non-neoconservative elements of the administration has served a vital role in allowing the neo-cons to do what they want. But the neo-cons have always, even from their modern inception during Bush I's term, fought against the reins of political pragmatism. In 1992, while serving in the George HW Bush administration Paul Wolfowitz drafted a Defense Planning Guildance document, which later served as the core of PNAC's mission. It was quickly quashed by the administration for being too radical, although not before causing a bit on an international incident. They made a marriage of necessity in order to sweep into power with George Bush in 2001, sharing power with more moderate and politically-minded elements of the administration, and for some time have operated within those confines. But with egos inflated from the perceived victories in the war on terror, it seems as if they are fighting those constraints as they try to run Powell out of office and launch their own programs without so much as a by-your-leave from the rest of the administration. If a divide is growing between these two factions, with the neo-cons holding this upper hand, this may offer the best chance yet to see Bush defeated in 2004. It has been those outside the neo-con camp who have done a masterful job of spinning and selling the eminently questional policies the neo-cons have implemented. If they abandon these allies they may find themselves in a heap of trouble, as they did in this instance.

Again, it's hard to figure any of this to any reasonable degree of certainty due to the intense secrecy maintained by the administration, but in any case it's fun to speculate..

Discussion: Congressional Committee Records

I had found the C-SPAN archive yesterday, but passed it over as it is only available in RealAudio, and I consider Real to be a very shady business and refuse to download their software. Additionally it is 3 hours long. I have time to scan through a transcript, but an audio/video recording of the event is not of much value to me. Thomas I also searched yesterday. It doesn't contain records of committee meetings. However, it does link to the homepages of the committees. And the Foreign Relations Committee site has been updated since yesterday to have transcripts of most of the hearing.

Discussion: Congressional Committee Records

C-SPAN.org maintains an audio and video library, and I found the entire hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the reconstruction of Iraq here. It may also be posted in the Congressional Record, which may be accessed here.

Discussion: Gingrich In Depth

Taking this from the top. Gingrich criticizes the State Department's lack of outrage regarding the US's removal from the UN Human Rights committee. They lost in a vote against Sweden. At the time the administration was cozying up to the likes of China, Isreal, Indonesia, the Phillipines, Pakistan, the Northern Alliance, Russia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, all in the name of the war on terror. All well publicized human rights offenders. They were fresh off torpedoeing the ICC, the UN biological weapons treaty, the UN land mine treaty. Not to mention the job they were doing on civil rights here in the US. Was it really in the US's interest to turn this into a big public battle? Given the circumstances it is pretty hard to argue that Sweden was not a better choice for the committee and a fight on the part of the US would have resulted in everything I just mentioned being publicly thrown in our faces. Devoid of any of this context, Gingrich's outrage appears well founded. But context is precisely what I count on FP Mag to have, and why I refer to it as more academic.

Gingrich further asserts that this is the reason that France contested the US's drive for war with Iraq in the UN. He offers no evidence. It is a fairly bizarre assertion. I've read many accounts of France's reasons for their actions, and have some opinions of my own. Never have I seen this connection made before, and barring any further argument it is hard to regard it as anything more than rhetorical hot air.

Passing over Ginrich's main thrust regarding the poor bureaucratic structure of the State Department (which I'll return to later), he attacks the department for a report by their intelligence wing that contradicted a statement of Bush's regarding the spread of democracy in Iraq. The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research stated in a report, leaked in March: "“liberal democracy would be difficult to achieve [in Iraq] . . . . Electoral democracy, were it to emerge, could well be subject to exploitation by anti-American elements.” The truth of this statement seems obvious to me, and I believe that events that have come to pass since that time bear it out. Gingrich makes no effort to contest the accuracy of the statement, only that it is not in tune with the neo-con chorus line. Does he believe the State Department's Intelligence and Research group should serve as a PR arm of the government rather than, say, trying to come up with the most accurate intelligence and research assessments it can? I'll grant that the State Department ought to serve some role in evangelizing the policies of the administration, but I think the research department is not the place for that. Is not the evangelical roles played by intel groups exactly the reason that Bush and Blair now find themselves in such a pickle over the WMD's?

He further rips into the department's diplomats for their opinion that "they are profoundly worried about what they describe as the [Bush] administration’s arrogance or indifference to world public opinion, which they fear has wiped out, in less than two years, decades of effort to build goodwill toward the United States.” The job of the State Department is to represent US interest in international matters. Should they not have opinions on how this is done? Should they not attempt to be in tune with the reactions of other nations and their people to US actions? Again, the accuracy of the statement appears difficult to dispute. Numerous polls and statements by foreign politicians bear it out. This feeling on the part of the State Department merely indicates that they are, in fact, doing the job they are assigned to do. Again it seems the State Department is guilty of nothing more than failing to toe the neo-conservative line.

Gingrich takes a brief break from attacking the state department to lambast the left wing media, NGO's, and academics for inciting opposition to the US which the State Department must counter. Again the evidence is completely absent, save a throw-away statement that "some observers" felt the BBC's coverage of the Iraq war was little different from Al-Jazeera's, a statement which I, as a regular reading of the BBC, find to be utterly unbelievable. The left wing media is largely of myth of the past. That time has come and gone, and Gingrich's invoking it does little to improve his credibility. And NGO's contribute considerable human and financial resources that should be a tremendous boon to US foreign policy. They provide a devoted and compassionate side to US foreign policy that is desperately needed in these days. To blame them for US's ills in foreign perception is folly.

Gingrich goes on to state that direct interactions with other states are obsolete, and that the US needs to change to a broadcast format for foreign policy, making minor adjustments for each region. In other words he wants to adopt the Clear Channel radio model for foreign policy. I'm sure other nations will greatly appreciate having even less consideration from, and interaction with, the US than they get now. Again, any reasoning or justification for this change is completely absent.

I'm beginning to tire at this point, so I'll skip the remainder and get back to Gingrich's main point. I, frankly, can't speak to the bureaucratic systems of the State Department and their efficiency in serving the President, other than to say that, based on the issues Gingrich raises, they seem to be doing a good job. He does indeed cite a couple of relevant reports in this area to back up his position. However, he completely fails to provide any counterpoint or perspective from the State Department. In any serious discussion, I expect, I demand, to see this. Getting only one very opinionated side of the story is what I expect of Limbaugh or O'Reilly, hence my comment. The best Gingrich does is to quote the State Department in saying that some reorganization proposal is “too disruptive and distracts too much energy for ongoing operations,” and conlcude based on that statement that "the State Department is far too busy being ineffective to bother fixing its internal structures in order to become more effective." Clearly this is not the whole story. He is arguing against a straw man. And given the weakness of the rest of his argument, and given what I know if his background and previous statements I find this aspect of his position to be quite lacking in credibility. I feel no qualms in dismissing it out of hand. I am at this point a bit curious to know exactly what those reports said and what the full response of the state department was. But on their own, I find Gingrich's arguments worthless.

Credibility is currency. You have to earn it before you spend it. If you've earned credibility I will give you the benefit of the doubt when you make assertions that are less than fully supported. If you haven't, I won't. Gingrich clearly hasn't. Gingrich had little to offer when he was Speaker of the House, and has changed little since then. At the time he was a captain of the vicious and petty party politics that, from his time on, characterized the Clinton Presidency. He was enough to make me a big fan of Bob Dole, his contemporary counterpart in the Senate, who despite disagreeing with almost all of my political positions, at least had the merit of being thoughful and gentlemanly. Now, holding no power, Gingrich has been reduced to serving as a right-wing attack dog.

There are many serious issues to discuss regarding US foreign policy and the perceptions of that policy by other nations and their peoples. There have been many interesting and insightful pieces written on the matter in recent years, and FP Mag has hosted a good number of them. Gingrich completely disregards all of those discussions in foisting his politically driven screed on his readers. He does not even acknowledge the effect of US policies, past actions, or the US's position in the world on foreign opinion, nor the internal conflicts, contradictions, and complications that those issues present to the State Department and its mission. As far as his essay is concerned they don't exist. Only the State Department, by itself, and void of any context, is responsible for the poor global perception the US carries. He ignores all previous serious discussion of the topic on which he writes in order to launch a half-baked attack that finds the State Department guilty of being something other than a simple PR organ for the neo-con leadership, something it was never intended to be in the first place. I find his essay to be of little intellectual value, and frankly somewhat insulting. But then again, as a great man once said, that's just my opinion.

Discussion: Congressional Committee Records

Driving home today I heard a report on the Senate Foriegn Policy Committee holding a hearing with Paul Wolfowitz on the subject of Iraq. Based on their description and the audio clips in the story, it seems Wolfowitz got a pretty good reaming out. I thought it would be interesting to see the whole story, so I went in search of a transcript of the hearing. To my amazement I have not been able to find it anywhere, save here, where they charge $50+ for access. Did I just miss it somewhere? I suppose it possible that it hasn't been entered into some website yet since it's still the same day of the hearing. But if that is not the case, I will be mightily dissappointed with the government and our media news outlets. In this day and age of instant access to information it should be a given that something as important as Senate hearings is released for free in its full form to the internet. The other surprising part of this is that aside from NPR's report, this story doesn't seem to be covered by any other media outlets that I can find. I guess they're too busy filling us in on the Kobe Bryant story... Maybe you guys will have better luck finding this than I did.

Article: Who Gave You Another 15 Minutes?

Joe, I have to admit that I am suprised that you find the Gingrich article in FP sensational and non-academic. While I don't agree with all of Gingrich's arguments, I do think he has valid arguments. While you seem to imply that the article is an attack on the Rogue Powell rather than the rogue State Department, Gingrich's arguments raise bigger questions about the role of the State Dept. Should the State Dept be exactly in line with the President's policies in an obligatory sense? If so, is this truly the best path to a successful international diplomacy? If you see Gingrich's article as an attack on Powell, then perhaps he is right. If you were running the country, would you want your appointees countering your policies and beliefs openly in the press? Wouldn't this undermine the ability of a president to instill confidence in the public and carry out policy? While discussion is clearly important, open contradiction is likely to be counterproductive. The exception to this, of course, is when no discussion occurs in the first place (as with Johnson and the Joint Chiefs prior to Vietnam).

I think you also missed the real criticism of the article, which Gingrich himself alludes to. He quotes a Los Angeles Times article about diplomats who "said they are profoundly worried about what they describe as the administration's arrogance or indifference to world public opinion, which they fear has wiped out, in less than two years, decades of effort to build goodwill toward the United States". Gingrich quickly dismisses this as simply being out of line with the Bush vision. However, this is another (more) plausible argument for the failure of the State Dept. In short, I contend that this administration's policies are so out of step with world views and processes that no restructuring of the State Dept would have solved our "image problem". Gingrich's failure to seriously address this point is a major limitation of the article. On the other hand, why hasn't the State Dept restructured according to the suggestions of the US Commission on National Security?

Article: Do These Guys Do Standup?

While US and British intelligence agencies are being raked across the coals for their bad information on Iraq's weapons stockpiles, in a bizarre twist of black comedy, the Israeli Knesset, according to this TIME article, is throwing a fit at the Mossad for not having come up with the same bogus intel. It seems the Mossad was never able to find any good evidence on the weapons, but the Knesset (and possibly the Mossad themselves) have quite effectively convinced themselves that they exist contrary to their own evidence. Now they're pissed that Mossad has never come up with data to back up their assumptions. I've often suspected that the Israeli government is living in some paranoid alternate dimension, but this takes the cake. Look, guys, your intel got it right. Be happy.

Article: Passing the Stink Test

Here's an interesting effort to overcome the information failure issue mentioned a couple weeks ago. An MIT student has put together a corporate ethics geiger counter. You scan a UPC symbol, and it spits out its opinions on the company. It's awfully primitive, but has a lot of potential. The quality and completeness of the data the devices uses don't appear to be very good at this point. It was suggested on /. that this thing should come configurable, such that you could take a quiz or fill out a preference form, and the device would weight its results based on your ethical preferences. It's an idea with a lot of merit, but still leaves us with the issue of who maintains the data and how trustworthy they are. Particularly once the system is automated (so users have no direct interaction with the data) and is directly attached to consumers' purchase decisions (driving up the ante for companies), capture may be a real concern.

Discussion: To Go Where No Man Has Gone Before

While I'm at the FP Mag stuff, there's another one from the new issue arguing that governments should drop out of space exploration and let wealthy folks take it over. I strongly disagree with Rees's conclusions. His reasoning is largely based on the conclusion that individuals better represent humanity than nations and that nations chicken out too quickly when things go wrong. Going by historic events neither of those points appear to hold much weight. When a test of the Apollo 1 module went up in flames, killing three astronauts the program barely paused to offer condolences. Even in recent days with the media endlessly replaying footage and milking the tragedy for every sentimental, sensationalist buck they could get, there has been a strong consensus in the public that the show must go on. The general feeling is that the best way to honor the fallen is to support the cause for which they died. And who watched the first moon landing and did not feel a sense of pride for mankind?

There are other criticisms, some of space exploration in general. Rees states that putting people in space accomplishes very little, and that probes and other automated systems could do the job as well, cheaper and with less risk. He mentions the bureaucratic overhead and PR obligations of the space programs. He cites the viability of private interests to continue the mission of space exploration. In a sense these are all good criticisms. It is true that the manned missions to space have been of little value for a good 20 years now. It is true that NASA has developed serious bureaucratic problems, and that it needs to keep up the manned missions just to retain their profile and bring in funding. It is true that private groups will soon be able to put people in space (check this out for some details on that).

I agree with those criticisms. But I don't see private pursuit of space exploration as the answer. Many of the ills that have befallen NASA are not inevitable (as NASA's accomplishments of the 60's and 70's would attest), but are symptomatic of the program being discarded and maligned by political leaders of both parties for the past two and a half decades. This is corrected not by closing down NASA, but by reprioritizing and revitalizing it.

My feeling is that space exploration is a tremendous opportunity for mankind, and scientific research is only one facet of that. Space is mankind's new manifest destiny and has been for 50 years now. Progress in space transcends the petty politics that bedevil us on the ground. It can help change our perspective on the whole mess of humanity. It puts on proud display the most noble aspects of man: courage, teamwork, creativity, intelligence, curosity, devotion. Ultimately, learning about our universe is most useful for what it teaches us about ourselves.

And I supremely doubt the viability of private explorers and adventurers to do this on their own. They will reach space soon, but then what? By current estimates the X Prize groups will likely succeed for a cost of a few times the prize money ($50m or less). Something on this scale can likely be funded by philanthropy and space tourism. And the placing of probes and satellites in orbit is already funded by private enterprise. But to establish a real permanent presence in space (and the pathetic space station they have now does not count) or to go to Mars will cost many billions of dollars. No adventurer will foot that cost. There is no viable reason for industry to do it either. Will the cost some day come down to where rich adventurers can do it? Maybe, maybe not. Do we want to wait many decades to find out. Certainly not. When the US went to the moon the program spun off innumerable new technologies that went into consumer and industry use. Why did they produce these things when industry did not? They had the brainpower, the funding, and the will to do it. Private industry may have developed some of these technologies eventually, some they probably would never have come up with. The space program gave scientists and engineers the freedom to imagine and the resources to make their dreams into reality. If we waited private industry to develop all of the things needed to make a moon trip, we'd probably still be waiting.

And when a worthy permanent space station is created, will it better represent mankind as a club for rich adventurers or as a public enterprise open to anyone who works their way up through the space program? Contrary to Rees, my contention is the latter. In either case few people will probably make the trip, but I would feel better to know that those are selected by merit, not by riches.

It still blows my mind every time that I think about the fact that we made it to the moon with 1960's technology. Were it not a fact, I would swear it impossible. What could we accomplish now if governments around the world (but especially here in the US) dedicated 10% or 20% of their military budgets to space exploration? The mind boggles.

Article: Who Gave You Another 15 Minutes?

I'm sure you Foreign Policy Mag subscribers have already seen this article by Newt Gingrich blaming the State Department for making people hate the US. Apparently they haven't been cruel and arrogant enough for his tastes. Now that I've stopped laughing and wiped the tears from my eyes enough to actually read the article, I really have to say that it's one of the most pathetic pieces of literature I've ever read. I'm a bit disappointed that FP would this run as cover story. It's clearly intended (as have been all of Gingrich's recent statements) to be in the Rush Limbaugh/Bill O'Reilly vein of inflamatory, far-right pedagoguery. FP Mag usually tries to keep things on a more academic level... Apparently they're not immune from senationalism. That aside, I find these Gingrich statements to be most interesting in regards to the insight they give to the conservative machine. I recall that when he came out and blasted the State Dept a month or two ago it was widely rumored that he was doing so with the blessing or even at the request of many of the neo-cons in the administration.

I think it will be very interesting to hear, years from now, if ever, the inside story of what went on in this administration. There clearly have to be some different factions there, but I can never figure out exactly how they interact and who's really driving. I strongly suspect that the Powell State Department was one of the Rove's more clever moves. It's clear they never meant to let him have any real power in things. Right from the start, just a few months into the term, they very publicly humiliated him on the CO2 issue, and never let up from there. His presence has been useful from a political perspective, to take heat from the rest of the administration and have a moderate multilateral face that they can use when it suits their purposes. He has clashed frequently with the neo-cons, but they always win. It seems strange to me that they would use Gingrich to attack him so strongly and to lobby for a neo-con housecleaning of the State Department. Powell is a useful tool for their cause. I think Rove sees this, and apparently he has convinced the President as well. Given the dedication of the administration to presenting a unified front, is surprises me that they haven't been able to get the neo-con club on board with this. There has to be some sort of internal conflict in progress, but it's hard to figure exactly who the sides are or what they hope to accomplish.

Discussion: Circling the Drain

There is another story on /. regarding the impending demise of the IT industry in America. I find this endlessly fascinating. Stories like this used to pop up once a year, but now they're hitting almost once a month. There was a distinct current of denial in it for a while. There were a lot of chest-thumping "only inferior coders need to worry about this, not uber-mensch like me" posts in the early days. Now a sort of resignation is taking over. It doesn't matter if you're good when a company can get 8 decent coders somewhere else for the price of you. This reality is only recently starting to cut through the arrogance and bravado of the American IT community. This was not supposed to happen to highly skilled white-collar workers. We're suffering the same fate as car manufacturers in the 70's and 80's and we can see it coming. Some people are trying to jump ship and find a new line of work entirely, some are trying finding niches that will survive the exodus of jobs, many others are just hanging on for dear life. It's quite a thing to see..

Article: Information Failure

This editorial from CSM discusses labelling and the information failure facing consumers trying to accurately pursue their market objectives. This is another of our frequent topics, and the author raises a lot of good questions in the beginning of the article, many of which I don't think are adequately answered by the author's proposed labelling regime. Other possible solutions we've discussed before are pushing the decision process out of the marketplace to a situation where the consumer can more completely access and study the relevant details, or installing some certification process. The practical limitations on consumers' abililty to be properly informed about the vast number of every-day choices they make is a crucial behavioural problem.

Also on CSM today, this article, indicating that the end is near. I've always said, if a person wanted to be really wealthy they'd start marketing a consumer version of the M1A1 Abrams tank. That statement apparently is not as satirical as I'd hoped it would be...

Article: It's That Time Again

The Presidential primary season is starting to heat up. There was a story today on /. regarding Lawrence Lessig having Howard Dean guest host his blog while he's gone on vacation. That is an endorsement that scores big points with me. Also I found a link to this web opinion survey which matches up your political opinions with the stated positions of the 2004 candidates. I was a 100% match with the green party. After that, Howard Dean edged out Kucinich by one point. However, after reading through each of their position pages, I think I favor Kucinich a bit over Dean. I was particularly impressed by this quote: "Among the first actions of a Kucinich Administration will be withdrawal from NAFTA and the WTO—to be replaced by fair trade agreements." Of course, by all reports Kucinich is likely going to get his ass handed to him. But it can't hurt to support him until that happens..

Odds'n'Ends: Quote of the Week

Brewers manager Ned Yost's reaction to the sausage bopping incident:

"I just looked over and saw our wieners in a wad. That's the extent of my knowledge."

Article: Paging Oliver North

In the past 24 hours both Condi Rice and George Bush have fully dumped responsibility for the uranium gaffe on the CIA. Now they just need to find some party loyalist within the CIA to fall on his sword for this and they'll have cleared that hurdle. This should not prove too difficult given that the CIA is still claiming that those trucks were bio-warfare labs despite findings by other British and US government officials that the trucks were most likely used to pump weather balloons. Bush is all lacquered up in his teflon coating.

And here's your regularly scheduled episode of "The Iranian People Want A Liberal Democracy".

Update: Ask and ye shall receive. George Tenet accepts blame for the uranium mess.

Article: In More Important News

Pittsburgh Pirates first baseman Randall Simon "bopped" the italian sausage with his bat during the race between the meats during the seventh inning stretch at Miller Park on Wednesday. See this slide show on the New York Times website, and this video clip from the ESPN website. Simon was arrested after the game, but charges have been reduced to disorderly conduct and he was released with a fine.

Discussion: Coming Back to Life
(I upgrade this from random spewage)

I wanted to get my two cents in before we left for our two-week trip to Vermont, where I hope to do a more throrough background check into this Dean fellow. For the record, I have not placed my allegiance behind anyone quite yet, but I still think Dean is worth keeping an eye on for the time being. His position on the death penalty is a little disappointing, but what interests me most about him is that he was most certainly the most vociferous anti-war candidate, and that puts him in the best position to call for an independent commission to investigate the evidence (or lack thereof) used to justify the war. By the way, Dean has recently called for the resignation of Rumsfeld and other administration officials who misled the nation about the war (see here). This may be a little premature, but at least he is not letting the issue slip away.

I think that President Bush is dead in the water from the WMD issue. It may be just wishful thinking, but President H.W. Bush was unable to capitalize on the 1991 Gulf War, and that was without the level of controversy that President Bush finds himself swimming in. And I think there will be more to follow. For instance, tomorrow the BBC is conducting an interview with Ron Manley, who oversaw the elimination of Iraq's chemical weapons program following the 1991 Gulf War and who is expected to argue that Iraq posed no significant military threat. OpenDemocracy.net is also planning to publish an article about Ron Manley.

I have little to add to Joe's interesting commentary on the current situation in Europe, other than to note that Foreign Policy magazine had an interesting article in this month's issue about how US-European relations may be affected by the decline in the US dollar. It notes all the potential upside to a weakened dollar, but fails to discuss how this might be a bad thing. Call me a pessimist if you must.

Article: The Lost Art of Journalism

There's a well written piece from Brent Cunningham, editor of the Columbia Journalism Review, describing the history of "objective" journalism and how things got to the sorry state they're now in. He does a very nice job of analyzing a number of historical trends that have led up to the gutless press-release journalism popular now.

Random Spewage: Coming Back to Life

So We've all had a nice three week break, I think it's time to kick a little life back into this thing... I'll try to fire off enough random topics here that one of them will have to stick =).

First of all, in the news: European political leaders are idiots too. I guess we always knew Berlusconi was scum, so his latest round of Nazi insults should not come as any great surprise. I forget... didn't Italy take some part in WWII as well? Anyhow, not to be shown up, Germany's Gerhard Schroeder has come up with the perfect solution for all of Germany's economic woes: a major tax cut. Germany is already in trouble with the EU for running too large a deficit, now Shroeder want to further ignore EU rulings to make it even larger. I would guess that EU dictates being ignored by one of the Union's most significant members will not be good for its general health and cohesiveness. And to think George Bush doesn't like this guy..

On to the always popular WMD issue.. Having attempted and largely failed to shift the focus from WMD's to humanitarian motivations for the war, Rumsfeld has decided that maybe the terrorist angle will play. After all it's worked for every other issue the administration has run into resistance on. But, as I said, I still think Bush will emerge from this mess with little damage. Ceci has been running through the American President series on DVD (it's a really good documentary, btw), and we just saw the Reagan one. It covered the Iran Contra scandal in some depth. The guy secretly sold weapons to Iran, then illegally funnelled the procedes to the Contras and went to considerable effort to cover the whole thing up. He lied about it on national television and to a congressional investigation. In the end he emerged with barely a scratch and many of his cohorts in the project are now working for the current administration. Bush has reminded me of Reagan in many respects, and I rather think he'll pull this stunt off as well. His administration keeps such a tight rein on information I just don't see anything blatantly incriminating slipping out. I see a lot of little inconsistencies hitting the news, but no cum-stained dress. If Bush is to be beat in the upcoming election it will have to be on mess in Iraq or on the economy.

And speaking of the economy.. I was part of a discussion over the 4th with my venerable Grandpa Martin. He is a very sharp guy, and a political wonk if ever there was one (I think I've told you guys about him in the past). He strongly shares my opinion that the US economy is in for a very rough ride for the foreseeable future due to globalization effects. I found that to be very interesting, because he is generally a fairly establishment-type Democrat. I guess these ideas are starting to get wider audience. It's an issue worth addressing, and one I'm not sure we've really discussed much. One of the reasons this really disgusts me is the general unfair trade situation. As I've said previously I see this less as America's high wealth concentration being dispersed into other markets, and more of a vertical shift of wealth from the middle class (who are losing their jobs in droves) to the upper management and ownership classes (who are exploiting the situation). However, even if this is corrected, wealth would likely flee the US simply because the concentration is so high here compared to the rest of the world. On the surface, from a utilitarian standpoint that would seem good, but I'm not sure I'd really be happy if that happened. For one thing I'm an American, and having the local economy stuck in an extended depression would probably suck on a personal level. Additionally if first world economies are devastated in the process of promoting fair trade, I'm not sure that will really have a net good impact on developing economies. I have to admit I have seen no research on the issue and I haven't thought it through to a level that satisfies me.. Is there some middle road here? Some way to put a very quick end to the exploitative nature of the current trade system, but take a gradual (or even somewhat regressive) approach to trade liberalization in general, with a specific eye towards global economic stability? Or am I just being selfish?

Finally, I'm having some doubt about Howard Dean, although he did get my vote in the moveon primary. By most reports he was fairly moderate as a governor, but is now taking a far-left position as a candidate. And his position on Israel would give Wolfowitz or Lieberman a run for their money. I can't help but wonder, who is the real Howard Dean? I know, Barry, you are a big proponent of his, maybe you can offer some defense.

Discussion: Weapons of Mass Compunction

The BBC, the Independent, and the Guardian have news stories (see BBC here, the Independent here, and the Guardian here) covering the report released by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee of the House of Commons.

Also, former ambassador Wilson stated on Sunday's Meet the Press (see the transcript here) that he investigated the issue whether Iraq purchased uranium from Niger over a year ago and found it was unfounded--and told the Bush administration as much. The Christian Science Monitor published this commentary on the issue over a month ago, and CNN had this interview today. Check out Mr. Wilson's op-ed in the New York Times, entitled "What I Didn't Find in Africa"

Commentary: Did Someone Say Quagmire?

There's another story today about a couple more US soldiers killed in Iraq. If this keeps up I may have to retract my predictions of a W second term. I always figured Iraq would eventually descend into chaos, given the general success of Western nations in building democracy in developing nations. But I was sort of expecting that the administration could pull the same sort of snow job with Iraq that they did with Afghanistan. But as long as there are reports of dead GI's in the news every night Bush is not going to get far pretending the nation building mission has been a smashing success. And if the war goes south, he isn't left with much to hang his hat on. Of course, I still tend to think he'll skate on the WMD issue..

Article: Proposed European Constitution

The Convention on the Future of Europe has just released its proposed Constitutional Treaty for the 25 current members of the EU. The official (proposed) text may be found here (part 1) and here (parts 2, 3, and 4) (it's rather long). A "reader-friendly" version can be found here . Here is a good article summarizing the text and the European Convention.

Discussion: Weapons of Mass Confusion

I don't know whether there are or were weapons of mass destruction at the time Bush decided to invade Iraq. But that's beside the issue. The public should not determine whether the invasion of a sovereign nation, in direct contravention of our obligations under the United Nations Charter, can be justified only after the fact. Instead, we should examine the evidence Colin Powell presented to the United Nations and any intelligence reports that are made public. We are not afforded hindsight when making important decisions of foreign policy. On June 6, Rumsfeld said he was sure some evidence would be found. That is neither here nor there. We must remain focused to the more important question: Was there justification for the use of force at the time we invaded? And before we can answer this question, there is still much that must be revealed to the public.

An interesting update: Bloomberg reports excerpts from a September 2002 report by the Defense Intelligence Agency (oxymoron) that concluded there "is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or whether Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities." The Bloomberg story may be found here. Apparently, Rumsfeld agrees the full report should be released, because these statements were taken out of context.

Discussion: Weapons of Mass Distraction

Barry - by saying there is a lot more to be uncovered, are you referring to scandal or evidence of weapons of mass destruction? Whether or not inspectors do end up finding evidence of WMD in Iraq, it is quite clear that WMD was not a valid justification for the war in Iraq. In fact, it doesn't even seem to have been a true concern of the administration. While I hope this is not the case, current evidence seems to suggest it is. Of course the jury is still out...

Discussion: Weapons of Mass Destruction

The Guardian has not only removed the article, but it has printed a correction. See Instapundit.com's blog entry here, and this story.

All the same, I maintain that there is a lot more to be uncovered.

Discussion: Weapons of Mass Distraction

The issues and controversy regarding Bush and Blair's claims that Iraq possessed WMD and was willing to use them are really heating up. So far there has been no evidence of WMD in Iraq (even from US inspectors). Rather, evidence is mounting in both the US and UK that this was none other than a ruse to justify an invasion. If the Democrats can't seize on this, then they are truly pathetic. See the latest breaking story about a leaked pentagon report regarding US Intelligence about Iraq on the BBC News. Also take note of some rather incriminating comments voiced by Paul Wolfowitz. The Guardian originally reported this story, along with Die Welt and Der Tagesspiegel. The Guardian has since removed the story...

Discussion: The Revolutionary Threshold

A few points...

Barry, I think we are focusing on different elements of the statement I quoted from the article (which I can only assume is an accurate assessment of Montequieu's position). You noted that it is expectation that drives revolution. I noted that "the people" need to be prodded along by reforms originating, presumably, from somewhere other than "the people". The latter statement is very much in keeping with Orwell's themes.

On the points you both posted regarding hierarchy of needs and individual empowerment, I would tend to favor Ryan's position. Unless I'm mistaken, most of the peasantry was dirt poor in both the Russian and French revolutions. The role of reform, I think, in inspiring revolution was not so much that it lifted the peasants to a more secure lifestyle, but that it gave them courage question and oppose their governments.

Regarding wealth and materialism, I would definitely favor Frank's position. In countries of great wealth (think Japan and the US), materialism is enshrined rather than reduced. In fact, this is something I wish that Putnam might have studied as a factor in community involvement. I can think of a lot of annecdotal evidence that wealth is tied to a greater focus on personal attainment, where poverty creates more focus on community support. I don't, however, have any great evidence to back that up. It also tends to run contrary to my general feeling that Orwell's assessments are correct.

Also, and this could almost be separate (but related) topic, I was doing some reading in the "Market For Civil War" article in the same FP Magazine which looks at the financial causes of civil war. I was not impressed. First, they bounce back and forth between issues of absolute wealth and relative wealth without distinguishing between the two at all. Also much of their evidence was rather specious.

They pointed out that once a nation reaches a high per capita, the "risk of revolution is negligible". Of course, all the countries they seem to be referring to in that category are liberal democracies. Might that have a something to do with it? The Soviet Union faced economic hardship, but it was still relatively well off when it suffered a massive (albeit bloodless) revolution.

Similarly they supposed that wealth distribution was not a major factor, presenting as evidence that while Columbia suffered for that cause, Brazil "got away" with it. I'd say if 50% of countries with a high inequality of wealth suffer civil wars, that would make it a pretty major factor. Further that, as I mentioned recently to Barry, the other South American countries, including Brazil, that haven't seen recent revolutions are not out of the woods yet. They are facing severe problems with their democratic governments as progressive leadership is elected by the masses and has to go head to head with a small, but incredibly powerful upper class that has heretofore dominated the political system. Argentina has been hovering on the brink of total collapse for some time now, Venzuela just recently stepped back from the edge of civil war, and Brazil is now facing their first such challenge by a progressive government to the entrenched power of the wealthy. The verdict is certainly not in as to whether these democracies will survive their disparities of wealth.

For this very reason, however, I do support the authors' contention that democracy holds no promise of political stability for developing nations. I have serious doubts as to how well democracy can survive in this nation as the disparity of wealth grows. In most developing nations the situation is much worse. I continue to believe that having a large and healthy middle class is a crucial element to a strong democracy. Additionally, it has long been my contention that there needs to be a high level of social and cultural buy-in for democracy to succeed. Democracy is a fragile form of government which offers opportunities for corruption and subversion at every turn. Most developing nations are just not there yet. And this is a major difference of opinion between myself and these authors who completely dismiss the role of culture and historical background in civil war.

But I also have some agreement with the conclusions of the article. One of the elements they stress is the role of international peacekeepers. This I could not agree with more. I think that more than anything we need to buy time for these nations and provide them with the stability they need to grow the cultural, economic and educational infrastructure they need to create a stable government. And to otherwise get out of their way and let them do it. Some lessons can only be learned by experience...

I keep coming back to Iran. I just wish we could have seen what would have happened to them had the whole axis of evil thing never occurred. They had just the incremental reforms and high expectations we've been talking about. They've completely rejected foreign influence for 20 years and at the same time toppled the old aristocracy, and have come around to democracy on their own terms. They have a strong sense of national identity, unity, and pride. And even the newly entrenched powers were recognizing the need to change and liberalise. These are precisely the conditions that I would view ideal for the creation of a healthy and stable democracy. I couldn't write a better script. Unfortunately, by continuously rattling our sabre at Iran and praising the reformers we are tainting them with the perception of being American agents. This in a country that topped out Foreign Policy's chart (same issue) of popular nationalism and that is rabidly anti-colonialist.

And what a powerful example they could have been to the developing world. To demonstrate that nationalism and indepence from the colonial powers, the liberal democracies, is not, in fact, incompatible with the development of one's own liberal democracy. The neo-cons have been hoping that in Iraq they could create a shining example democracy for the middle east. That could have been, should have been, Iran. How much more powerful a demonstration would it have been to show them that they could get where they need to go without having to capitulate to the hated imperialists...

Discussion: The Revolutionary Threshold

Barry, I dare say you and Joe know as much (if not more) about psychological theories than I, so I won't make any attempt to correct you. I will only say that Maslow wasn't the only one to recognize the priority of personal security for the individual. Indeed, Sullivan, a psychiatrist contemporary to Maslow's time, believed that the maintainance of personal security is what drives our behavior and becomes maladaptive in psychiatric illness. But I digress...

I think there is a point we need to be clear on. We seem to agree that Montesquieu's position is that conditions for revolution are ripe when there is an expectation of change. Barry then goes on to comment on observation and perception of disparity, but I think this already begins to stray from Montesquieu's point (at least as I interpreted it). The majority can perceive or observe all the disparity it wants, but unless it expects that disparity to change (e.g. perestroika, solidarity), it will do nothing to attempt to alter current conditions. This, I think, is the biggest difference between the plebes vs. the middle/upper class. By definition, the middle/upper class will have had more success socially, economically, or both. Success emboldens individuals, and they learn that change is possible. They learn that they are empowered. I doubt that their sense of security or knowledge of conditions differs markedly from the plebes. Rather, the middle/upper class is more conscious of the situation because it thinks it can change it.

Back to Joe's original question: Can the plebes truly be made politically enlightened? I struggle with this question. I think they can be, but it is a great challenge that requires specific conditions. First, a large disparity (or perceived disparity) has to exist for the majority. Second, someone has to empower them by demonstrating that change is possible, even if there is resistance at the top.

Op-Ed: On FCC Rule and Order Regarding Concentration

Here is what one consumers' rights organization has to say about today's decision by the FCC. The FCC summarizes its position briefly, in this public notice, and in a little more detail here.

Reuters describes the likely legal challenges that will follow the FCC's decision in this article.