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.

Discussion: The Revolutionary Threshold

Please excuse any chaos in my thoughts, as I have not fully ripened them. But I still wanted to add whatever I could to this conversation.

I'm not sure that Montesquieu and Orwell are all that similar. Without reading Montesquieu's The Spirit of Laws, which is where I presume Montesquieu expresses the opinion set out in the Foreign Policy article, I understand this quote as an observation that people's expectations are what matters more than actual position. If the majority observes a disparity in wealth or condition, they are more likely to revolt because the inequality is salient. I apologize to Montesquieu if that is not his position, but it makes sense to me.

While Montesquieu seems to focus on the ideal conditions for revolution, Joe's statement of Orwell seems to focus on the locus of revolutionary change. Joe's contention is well formed and supported by the examples he gives. But without a more developed understanding of history, I cannot add to or challenge this contention. Assuming it is true, then, let me offer one possible explanation why revolution occurs in the middle- (or upper-middle) class. Ryan, I beseech you to clarify or correct any part of the following as necessary. There is a humanistic branch of motivational psychology (is this the same/related to behavioral psychology?) most well-recognized by Abraham Maslow's theory of the "Hierarchy of Needs," well summarized here. In short, Maslow theorized that lower-level needs (psychological and safety needs) must be satisfied before we are to pursue higher aims, like esteem needs and self-actualization.

I suggest that revolution only becomes a pursuit of some threshold segment of society when other, lower-level needs are met. Because the middle-class as a group is more likely to feel safe and needs to devote considerably less effort toward the basics, they may turn their attention to higher ideals like freedom, equality, and justice. One might wonder, then, why it is the middle-class alone and not all of the upper segment of society that joins in this revolutionary spirit, but I think there is a ready and self-evident reply. The highest of society becomes blind to these ideals by greed and self-interest, just as the lower realms of society are made ignorant by their desire to satisfy basic desires.

Apparently, I am not the first to stumble on this argument. Professor Ronald Inglehart wrote a book entitled, The silent revolution: Changing values and political styles among western publics. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press 1977), discussing how an increase in wealth might lead to less focus on materialism, which in turn could mean greater political participation. An interesting critique of Professor Inglehart may be found here.

The only challenge I have to this line of thought is that, if authors like Robert H. Frank (Luxury Fever) are correct, wealth is always relative, so materialism is more like a treadmill than part of the hierarchy. Again, it may be perception that matters most--if people perceive that their material needs are satisfied, they may indeed turn to higher ideals (freedom, justice, and equality), but there seems to be no end to material desire.

Discussion: The Revolutionary Threshold

Joe, I think this has some interesting implications for the external revolutions (most recently Afghanistan and Iraq). What happens when oppressed individuals are suddenly "released" from the regime that had oppressed them? If Montesquieu is right, then these people might just begin to carry out their own internal revolution after experiencing the change associated with the external revolution. A clear demonstration of this in Iraq occurred with the Shiite demonstrations. I'm not sure I have seen any evidence of internal revolution or change in Afghanistan, where the culture is generally less educated than in Iraq. It seems to me that an interaction takes place between rising expectations and education (and likely other factors). If a sufficient level of education exists (whatever that is) along with rising expectations for change, this class is likely to lead further change. Perhaps the poor/uneducated are relatively unable to organize in an effective manner? Or is it that they just don't comprehend the improvements that could be made in their lives?

Discussion: The Revolutionary Threshold

I had a brief discussion with Barry a couple weeks ago regarding the thresholds of social change, and was brought back to that reading the Foreign Policy Mag article on North Korea. In the article the authors reference the position of pre-revolution French philosopher Montesquieu that "revolutions don't occur when the people's conditions are at rock bottom but when reform creates a spiral of expectations that spurs people to action against the old stultifying system."

It's an interesting statement. There are some echoes of it in Orwell's "1984", which delves into the subject of revolution and how to create a society wherein revolution is impossible. His position is that popular revolutions only occur when driven by the efforts of the upper-middle class to bring social reform. The poor and downtrodden present no threat, on their own, to the social order, and are regarded as such by Big Brother.

Discarding revolutions largely driven by outside influence (Iran, Afghanistan, and such), it is difficult to find a counter-example to this theory. China, perhaps, but it would be highly debatable. In the US, the colonists were by no means downtrodden and in fact were in many ways well off compared to their European counterparts. And it was the new and more equitable social structure of the New World that put their expectations at such a level that the revolution occurred. In France and Russia, revolution was preceded by an effort by aristocrats to limit the power of the king. They rallied popular support for these efforts, creating expectations in the people that these limited reforms could not meet, setting the stage for rebellion. In the Soviet Union, Gorbachev's sweeping reform policies of Glasnost and Perestroika were clearly instrumental in the fall of the Iron Curtain.

The flip-side of this proposition is demonstrated by the failure of the embargoes of Cuba and Iraq. Constant outside pressure created an atmosphere of paranoia where the aristocrats had no breathing room to consider reform. The people of these nations were left so destitute and hopeless that little effort was ever made to topple their governments.

And in the end, this ties back, once again, to the inescapable discussion of the role of the intellectuals (typically aristocrats) in guiding the plebes and its impact on the structure of government. Can the plebes truly be made politically enlightened? And if not, where does that leave democracy and the Enlightenment vision of equality?

Article: Didn't Get the Memo

Treasury secretary Paul O'Neill was run out of town last December for having independent opinions in an administration where being "on message" is the single greatest criteria for holding office. A study he intiated continued in his absence and is now coming back to haunt the administration even as they try to bury it. The report found that we're on track to more than $44 trillion in budget deficits. Let it not be said that we don't set our goals high.

Follow-up article: There's No Business Like Show Business (But We Can't Talk About It)

On May 19, Joe posted a link to an article about Jessica Lynch. As a follow up, the Washington Post reports today in this article that Jessica Lynch's parents have been hushed, because there is an "ongoing investigation." I suspect that any investigation will continue well through the next election.

Follow-up article: Rumsfeld's Intel

If you want to get to the bottom of the shaky intel, I'd suggest researching the DoD's Office of Special Plans, which the Sec Def whipped up when the CIA and DIA came up short on the Patriot-o-meter. A google search turns up tons of links, including a couple of left-leaning British papers. Noticeably absent are any major US papers, networks, news channels, or the BBC.. My favorite is Warblogging's "Faith-Based Intelligence" (the title alone wins points).

Article: US Plans to Send 20,000 More Troops to Iraq; and at the same time, Congress Hacks Taxes with a Machete

Wake Up CNN, NYTimes, and the Rest of the Slacker American Media!

We find ourselves in a pitiful state of domestic affairs when we who search for truth must find it in the foreign media. Especially on Memorial Day weekend, when you would expect that troops going out to defend the pax americana might make for a good news story. Even the Pentagon's own website, where you might expect some patriotic back-slapping bon voyage to the 20,000 troops and their families. What a disgrace. George, you have anything to say about sending 20,000 more troops to clean up your mess during today's radio address?

Why, of course. not. G.W. is too busy touting his tax-cut and spend policy. Someone needs to tell him that the federal budget deficit is not just monopoly money, and learn to trust his advisors, like Alan Greenspan, who sees little to gain from the cuts, according to this article in the Washington Times. The tax cuts are well summarized in this Christian Science Monitor article. Bush seems to be putting all of his stock in Treasury Secretary John Snow, who praised the tax cuts (his comments may be found here).

Follow-up article: Democrats Question Whether Bush 'Hyped' Iraq Threat

Hmm. Do I sense that the fit is about to hit the shan for Bush's House of Cards?

Article: Bush administration pressed intelligence agencies for dirt to support the war

This article appeared on BBC's website yesterday and was featured on last night's BBC World News, contending that the Bush administration (Rumsfeld in particular) became irritated with the CIA because of disagreements over whether there were sufficient links between Saddam and al-Qaeda (the picture of Rumsfeld is very Hitler-esque). The BBC article cites the New York Times as breaking the story. You can find the New York Times article here.

From the X-Files folder: The Other Boys' Weekend

Apparently we weren't the only ones having a boys' weekend. The Illuminati were having their little get together too. Details are scarce, but there's a little more analysis in Asia Times. It's some bizarre, creepy freaking stuff, and if ever anyone were seeking fuel for conspiracy theories, this is it. On the other hand, renting out an entire hotel in the French countryside is something we may want to consider for the next Boys' Weekend..

Radio Article: "Paying for It."

I heard this great radio story on Monday's edition of Marketplace. It was part 1 of a series focusing on the economics of higher education. Very depressing, but worth a listen. The series has some links to webpages dedicated to this topic that are worth exploring if you find this an interesting topic (as I do).

Article: There's No Business Like Show Business

This article, which oddly was on BBC last night, but was pulled by this morning, and has now reappeared on The Guardian discusses the selling of the Jessica Lynch story. The most interesting part is where they mention that the idea of embedded reporters came from discussions with the evilest man in Hollywood, Jerry Bruckheimer. I should have known it... I wonder if this story was too racy for the BBC.

Weekend Wrap-up: The Importance of Being Pork

After another fantastic Boys' Weekend, I'm just going to try and quickly rehash the main topics covered in case anyone wants to pick up the discussions here. Feel free to add others I may have forgotten (I'm sure there are a few).

• Political systems/economics/behavioralism. Huge sweeping discussion of democracy, oligarchies, economic influence on politics. How are the behavioral flaws of the masses best handled in political systems, the intellectuals vs the plebes. Long time recurring topic of Boys' Weekends...


• Regulation and the "Free Market". How best should the market be regulated? How to define economic goals and structure competition? Do insurance agents deserve to live?


• Here Piggy, Piggy. What exactly would a person do with 15 lbs of pork?


• The Two Party System. Determining the merits of a two party system vs a coalition government. How do they affect voter choice? Does the relative merits differ in the real-world vs theoretical (corruption free) formulations?


• The Price of Freedom. Is there really anything more Patriotic than Kingsford Charcoal (tm)?


• Fiscal Policy and CapEx. Is there any sense whatsoever behind supply-side economics? What is the real impact of stimulus on the demand side? Is there a segment that lies somewhere between the two that could directly increase corporate capital expenditures?


• Global Politics and Militarization. What are the likely impact and ramifications of increasing use of the US military? Is it possible or worthwhile to invest in a monopolistic military standing to exert superpower political influence as a sole superpower? What is the real role of the military given existing politcal conditions?

Discussion: Wealth Tax v. Income Tax v. Consumption Tax v. ???

I apologize for my prolonged absence. I was reviewing some old posts, and thought I would share a comment, however belated it may be.

In Joe's Post of April 17, 2003, , Joe advocated for a wealth tax system. He highlighted fairness, practicality, and wealth regulation as three arguments that favored his position. Discussing wealth regulation, Joe posited that wealth disparity is correlated with and leads to political instability:

Further, (and I'm sure this will get me into a great deal of trouble) I think there is a role for the government to regulate and redistribute wealth. It is unhealthy for any society to have too uneven a distribution of wealth. When wealth becomes too concentrated in too few places the social structure becomes inherently unstable. Additionally the presence of a strong middle class is vital to the healthy function of a democracy. Democracy can be corrupted all too easily by money, and as such allowing people to amass vast wealth subverts the democratic process and allows those people to exert a much greater influence over the political system than anyone else.

I share Joe's sentiment, but there is an article in the May/June issue of Foreign Policy discussing the causes for Civil War (entitled The Market for Civil War) that gave me some pause. In it, Paul Collier dismisses income inequality as a catalyst for internal strife:

For example, income inequality and ethnic-religious diversity are frequently cited as causes for conflict. Yet surprisingly, inequality--either of household incomes or of land ownership--does not appear to increase systematically the risk of civil war. Brazil got away with its high inequality; Columbia didn't.

Collier goes on to argue that economic conditions generally "remain paramount in explaining civil wars." That is, it is not the distribution of income, but average quality that matters most (the author argues "the risk reaches nearly 80 percent"). Natural resources also play a large role, according to Collier's analysis.

The story also notes that, much "to the dismay of demoncratization activists, democracy fails to reduce the risk of civil war, at least in low-income countries." Too late for that chunk of information. Afghanistan, Iraq: sorry. No harm, no foul?

Editorial: 5 9's and Fighting Terrorism

Reading Joe Klein's piece in the recent Time Magazine regarding the Democratic hopefuls for 2004 election I was quite disappointed with the position he advocated on national security issues. He seems to feel that the Democrats should simply appear as a somewhat weaker version of Bush, supporting the same basic positions, but not taking such an aggressive stance. According to Klein, they simply need to meet a certain threshold of credibility on security, which they can do by supporting the security measures advocated by the administration.

I disagree. Security will obviously be a major issue in this election. More so than it deserves to be, but such is life. Being a weak-sister to Bush's hawkish, paternalistic self-assured position will be a serious liability. There is no threshold which will magically level the playing field on this issue. The people in love with the aggressive Bush approach will still vote for him even if the Democrats act like a kinder, gentler version of the same thing. But there are many people across the political spectrum who want an alternative. Parroting Bush is not the only way to appear strong on security. Instead there is a very credible position that can be taken to promote security that points out weaknesses of the Bush administration. This comes in two parts,prevention and recovery.

To prevent terrorism, aggressive unilateralism surely can't be the only viable approach. Promoting the value of diplomacy and strengthening international relationships both to weaken the popular elements of anti-Americanism and to build partnerships for investigating and dismantling terrorist organizations would be a welcome alternative for the American people. The Bush administration has been broadly criticized on this account, even within their own party. To agree with the Bush administration on their anti-terror policy and raise this issue as an aside would be a mistake. This failure should be kept front and center in any discussion of national security. Fostering strong diplomatic relations, boosting our international image, and launching a massive multilateral operation to seek and destroy terrorist organizations will do far more to combat terrorism than any war in Iraq ever could.

On the home front, recovery needs to be the name of the game. When creating systems that are expected to be 99.999% effective, as is a major focus for us in telecommunications, recovery is as important as fault prevention, and in many ways more important. The closer one gets to the 5 9's standard the more difficult it is to predict where the next fault may occur, and thus more difficult to anticipate it and prevent it. Terrorism falls very much into this case. It would be sheer foolishness to believe we can secure this nation from every avenue of attack. It is simply not possible. We can take action to prevent the obvious attacks, but it will be trivial for terrorists to find unanticipated means to attack us. Herein lies another major weakness of the Bush administration.

With recovery, the challenges are known. We don't need to know the exact method that would be used for the attacks, but rather the broad areas where we're vulnerable. We can measure how long it takes for the authorities to respond to various types of crises. We can figure out how to mitigate the impact of attacks before they occur. We can plan it out, we can drill it, we can measure the improvements. With recovery, we can be guaranteed tangible results.

For the purpose of prevention, sweeping and invasive laws have been passed and many tens of billions of dollars committed. But to recovery? Lip service and hardly a penny of funding. Dictates are given to state and local governments demanding their preparedness to respond to attacks, even as federal funding to those government organizations is slashed to fuel questionable tax cuts, and even as those governments are facing their most severe budget crises in decades. The focus of the Bush administration on prevention within the US is both futile and damaging to civil rights and the freedom and liberty they claim to hold sacred. The funding and focus from the federal government would be better applied to responding to and containing terrorist attacks should they occur.

There is an opportunity for the issue of national security to be a strength for Democratic candidates, rather than a weakness for them to try to gloss over. On this issue, as on many others, they need to find a way to be leaders rather than a cheap knock-off. There is a huge window of opportunity for them to do so, but the writing is already on the wall that this will be just one more failure for the Democratic party and their inept strategists. They seem to be stuck in the same state of denial that led them to authorize the war on Iraq with the belief that doing so would make national security a non-issue for the mid-term elections. Instead they merely strengthened the administration's position on what was the key issue in those elections and what will again, unfortunately, be the key issue in 2004. And I will again be stuck with the feeling that as much as the administration disgusts me, the Democrats deserve to lose.

Article: Barry is on the Money

There is a story on BBC marking the descent of the dollar and pound against the Euro. Apparently investors don't realize the true impact of the upcoming $700b tax cut. It's a little known fact that the US debt clock only has 15 digits, so once it hits $10t it rolls back to zero. We're well on our way!

Update: there is now another article documenting the rise of the Euro.

Article: Guerrilla Warfare is the Life For Me

Posted on the CS Monitor today is this article, welcoming back our friends the Taliban. I had to laugh a bit at the part where Salam mentions that Russia supplies them with weapons and money. Highly unlikely, but an amusing thought nonetheless. I don't doubt there are people in the Russian military who'd like to.

Discussion: Taxation of Wealth and other ramblings

Joe, thanks for the clarifications on the flat tax. It still seems to me that it could be a very fair and simple method of taxation - the debate here seems to be about whether we tax all wealth in addition to (or excluding) income. This seems like a very challenging issue - exactly what wealth do we tax and how do we value it? Who decides the value? If I own land, should the number of trees, water resources, minerals, etc., be accounted for in determining its value? Some, but not all of these factors, may be accounted for in the present market value.

On another note, I am wary about letting the federal government have such access to wealth taxation. They seem to have proven themselves fairly incompetent at managing taxpayer funds. I would be reticent to give them any more. If there were an extensive wealth tax (whether flat, progressive, or whatever) I think that the state, county, or municipality should take precedence. All we need is another trillion dollars for our B2 bombers and missle defense that isn't worth my own ass. Yup, I know, Jefferson vs. Adams all over again. I don't think this debate will ever end (unless Dubya has the ring, of course). By the way, speaking of State vs. Federal rights, I thought you might find the commentary below on Mr. Ashcroft interesting. It's from the latest issue of The Economist.

FYI, I am also in favor of a forfeiture of wealth upon death, although I see no reason for the threshold to be so high. Any reason for $50 million, Barry? Who needs that much money? Another cool idea would be to allow the soon-to-be-dead dude to alot money over the threshold to soon-to-be-dead dude's favorite charities. Is there any such provision in current tax law? At any rate, I propose something like $1 million as the threshold for forfeiture.

In other news, I thought you might be interested in reactions to the Oxfam Fair Trade Report that have been published and are linked on the Oxfam web site. I haven't looked at them yet, but it appears that there are arguments for and against the Oxfam story.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States: Steamroller Ashcroft; Lexington
The Economist; London; May 3, 2003;

Volume: 367
Issue: 8322
Start Page: 56
ISSN: 00130613
Full Text:
(Copyright 2003 The Economist Newspaper Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Conservatives beware: an out-of-control attorney-general is trampling on your principles

SO FAR, the debate about John Ashcroft has focused mainly on the war against terrorism. Libertarians moan that the hyperactive attorney-general has hugely expanded the government's power to monitor citizens (by wiretapping their telephones and so on); that he has made it much easier to detain and deport immigrants and foreign visitors, particularly Arabs; and that he has ruthlessly accumulated power over the country's sprawling judicial system in his own hands. Conservatives wearily retort that wars force everybody to rethink the balance between freedom and security. Surely the attorney-general is duty-bound to err on the side of vigilance to thwart another September 11th?

Well, yes. But what if you examine Mr Ashcroft's record in other areas, such as medical marijuana, assisted suicide and the death penalty? You find precisely the same pattern of John-knows-best centralisation. The country's terror-fighter has also become the country's self-appointed moraliser-in-chief. And he is trampling all over two conservative principles he used to espouse: limited government and localism.

Begin with an idea precious to most Republicans: states' rights. Mr Ashcroft has prosecuted "medical marijuana" users in California despite a state initiative legalising the practice. He has tried numerous ploys to challenge Oregon's assisted-suicide law (including encouraging the Drug Enforcement Administration to revoke the licences of participating doctors), thus snubbing both the state, which has passed the law not once but twice, and the Supreme Court, which has explicitly left policymaking in this area to the states. He has repeatedly tried to bully local federal prosecutors into seeking the death penalty, despite a long tradition of local discretion in death-penalty cases.

Mr Ashcroft's new reverence for central government is beginning to seem downright Democratic, if not Gallic. The whole point of the American political system is its sensitivity to local differences. Federalism, as Justice Louis Brandeis put it, means "that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country." It also means that a huge country with a richly diverse population can try lots of different approaches to moral issues. People in rural Nebraska can adopt a different approach to lap-dancing from people in San Francisco; Vermont can demonstrate its uniqueness by favouring both gay marriage and tight controls on internet porn.

"Moral federalism" has deep roots in America. The English Parliament's Act of Toleration (1689) left religious issues almost entirely to local discretion. People with different religious views congregated in different regions--Puritans in Boston, Catholics in Maryland and so on. The Founding Fathers laboured mightily to keep the federal government out of dictating civic virtue. James Madison noted (in Federalist Paper 56) that different groups progress at different speeds. Alexander Hamilton (in Federalist 17) argued that any attempt to impose a centralised morality would be "as troublesome as it would be nugatory". The local administration of justice is "the most powerful, most universal and most attractive source of popular obedience and attachment".

This tradition of moral federalism would seem particularly practical now. The country is still basically split down the middle politically, and this political divide reflects a deeper division about values. When it comes to matters such as God and sex, many of the people who voted for George Bush live in a different moral universe from Al Gore's supporters.

There are clearly some areas where the federal government has to step in to protect individual rights. It was right to use its might to dismantle segregation in the South. Mr Ashcroft has legal grounds to argue that the constitution guarantees individual citizens the right to bear arms. But in general the Justice Department needs to err on the side of caution on issues where reasonable people can disagree. It should recognise that different communities have very different views: large cities, for instance, voted for Mr Gore by a 71% to 26% margin, while small towns and rural areas voted for Mr Bush by 59% to 38%. And it should try, as far as possible, to allow those communities to make decisions for themselves, rather than forcing them to bow the knee to Washington. Agreeing to disagree offers the country the best chance of avoiding an endless culture war in which both sides use the federal government to enforce their views.

Nobody should be more worried about Mr Ashcroft than conservatives. Hasn't it usually been the Democratic Party that has championed big government and Washington-knows-best morality? And hasn't it usually been the Republican Party that has stood for local variety? In the 1990s the Republicans owed many of their biggest successes--from welfare reform to school vouchers--to their enthusiasm for federalism. Mr Bush owes his job partly to the quintessentially federalist Electoral College.

A mistake by any measure

Mr Ashcroft's conversion into a centraliser is both hypocritical and short-sighted. It is hypocritical because Mr Ashcroft was once a leading critic of big government. As attorney-general and then senator for Missouri, he resisted a federal injunction to desegregate St Louis's schools so vigorously that the Southern Partisan, a neo-Confederate magazine, singled him out for praise.

It is short-sighted because, as an evangelical who refrains from smoking, drinking, dancing and looking at nude statues, Mr Ashcroft represents a minority in his own party, let alone the country. He has no chance of winning the culture wars: the forces arrayed against him, from the media to the universities, are too vast. The best he can hope for is a live-and-let-live attitude that gives minority views like his own room to flourish. Mr Ashcroft will come to rue his Faustian bargain with the federal government the next time a Democrat sits in his office.