Democracy in Iraq and Nigeria

So I was reading this article about Nigeria in the Atlantic (thanks, Ryan!) and I came across a throw-away line in which the author, Jeffrey Tayler, makes a very interesting assertion: "In Nigeria, where one generally votes for one's religious or ethnic brethren, democracy has deepened divisions rather than healed them." I think he is pretty much on the money, and it says a lot about why election after election has not helped Iraq achieve a functional government. When people feel insecure (and not insecure as in "does my hair look ok", but insecure as in "I don't know if I'll be dragged into the street and shot by thugs today"), a clan mentality tends to ensue. If the fundamental conflict in Iraq (and Nigeria) is one between clans, having elections (where everyone votes for a representative from their own clan) buys you nothing. It really is problematic for democracy in many of these cobbled together former colonial holdings. Democracy does not necessarily require an ethnically and religiously homogeneous society, but it does demand one where people don't identify themselves solely by those traits (someone send a memo to the religious right).

What You See/What You Read

What you see: Stephen Colbert hammering Bush and the Washington establishment as Bush smolders and the audience watches in awkward silence. What you read: George Bush light-heartedly mocks himself, is happy to be there. Oh and Stephen Colbert showed up too.. (The Post's similar account.) Blogs have gone gaga over Colbert's performance, but the mainstream media has hardly a word to say about it. It says everything about why blogs have invaded the turf of the regular media. The two-presidents thing was cute, but it was obviously not the compelling story of this event. I don't know who was ballsier, Colbert (who turned and looked Bush in the eye as he glibly delivered some of his harshest lines) or Mark Smith, the president of AP Radio, who invited Colbert to appear.

The Economist

Was just reading this series of articles on The Economist and thought, naturally enough about TBWJ. Though for a bunch of young tech savvy gentlemen such as yourselves the contents may not be shocking, it is a good bit of writing about the new media.

As long as I am linking to The Economist I think I will advertise a couple of other bits of their content there. Not all of their articles are freely available but enough are to make it well worth a weekly visit in my opinion (and they occasionally give you the option of watching an add in exchange for a day pass).

I thought this one was fairly good with regard to the current position of the Democratic Party. Though I have been intending to post a piece with my opinion as to why both of the parties suck so much and why the American people have become so polarized.

Another sweet Economist link is here. It's the original edition of The Economist from 1843 and an excellent argument in favor of liberal trade policies.

One final link. A quote in the media related Economist article linked above referring to Blogs as "the toilet walls of the internet" reminded me of a site I discovered this week. Ancient Roman graffiti.

People Don't Like Being Threatened

It seems like I've written about this same issue many times before in the contexts of both Iran and Israel-Palestine. It is also largely applicable to Iraq. People in a country (or in any other context, for example a family) may have their differences. They may not like each other. They may want to see change. But you do not capitalize on those differences by threatening them. The only thing that will do is bring them together in unity against you. Of all the stupid things I've heard and read about the possibility of military action against Iran, the most irritatingly stupid has been the oft-repeated idea that the young people in Iran don't like the conservative clergy who run the country and will therefore welcome an invasion or, in the face of Western pressure, will overthrow the government. My god, have we not heard this before?

The Iranian clergy had real reason to worry about their future position after the 1998 election, and consequently they allowed some moderation in policies that they otherwise would not have. Our constant belligerence towards Iran since 2001 has put an end to that and has seen a moderate president Khatami replaced by an extremist Ahmadinejad, and talks of reform replaced by talks of nuclear weapons.

When Khatami won the 1998 election, the Clinton administration, after much deliberation, decided that the proper response was to do nothing. Any action taken in support of the reformists would only have served to taint them with the appearance of Western influence. It was a fight that belonged to the Iranian people, and one where the side we favored had a good chance of success. Patience was the proper course.

That opportunity for internal reform in Iran has now been squandered, and reformists will need years to recover. I can't say whether we can afford to wait years for them. But I can say with some confidence that we can choose to either maintain an aggressive posture (as is the present course) or hope for internal reform in Iran. There is no option that will allow both. We are rallying reformists and conservatives alike to the flag. If we back off and hope for reform, there is no guarantee that Iran won't get the bomb. In fact, Iran probably will. But if they really liberalize, and I think they might, even with the bomb, that is a far better outcome and a more permanent solution than will ever be achieved through an aggressive approach.

Glad We Got to the Bottom of That

You can all rest easy now. After months of investigation into the story that the CIA had secret overseas prisons where prisoners were being held incommunicado and possibly subject to torture, we've finally gotten to the bottom of this story. The CIA agent who leaked this information has been found and fired by the CIA. No word on whether the agent will be subject to further legal action. Hallelujah, go USA! Now you'll have to pardon me while I go sick up.

Was Brent Scowcroft This Cool When He Was In Office?

Because man, oh man he looks like a genius now. The idea that we should have a consistent policy on nuclear power rather than picking favorites and expecting every other country to jump on board with our judgments only seems obvious if you don't follow the news in the U.S., because here that concept is downright fricken revolutionary. And the idea we should try find common ground with the Security Council nations and attempt to defuse the situation instead of ratcheting up tension? Mindboggling. Where does this guy come up with it?

Don't Be Stupid (Again)

James Fallows had another great article in The Atlantic, this time on potential military action against Iran. It's short and to the point, and, I think, well-argued. The bit about oil leverage was insightful, particularly in explaining the reluctance of the EU to push for strong sanctions.

McCain Madness

Just wanted to comment a little on all the John McCain discussion going around (inspired mostly by Howard Kurtz's obsession with covering it blow-by-blow in his Media Notes). I caught the interview with him on the Daily Show a couple weeks ago when McCain was going to speak at Liberty U. and Stewart told McCain that he was killing him. It was possibly the most absurd interview I've ever seen. I've been a huge McCain fan for a long time, and I still think he does a lot of good things in the Senate, outside the spotlight, that people tend to overlook (see my Lobbying Reform post of March 30), and I was really quite tolerant of his whoring himself to the Bush campaign in '04 as a matter of political necessity. I don't necessarily want to jump on the anti-McCain bandwagon, because I feel like a lot of it is sour grapes by people who never liked him and were just looking for a good excuse to vent. But I have to say he's coming awfully close to losing me, and if he keeps pushing for evangelical Christian support, he'll do just that. McCain has fought so hard and so long to maintain his integrity, I really can't express how disappointing it is to see him sell his soul now...

Fiat Currency, Dollar Dominance, and the War on Terror

Texas congressman Ron Paul attempts to tie all the pieces together (and I do mean ALL the pieces). It's bit on the sketchy side, but there could be something to it... If nothing else, there's probably a top-selling novel in it.

Sidenote: I love this blog (the source of this link).

Spare Us From Electable Candidates

So Kos is pumping some political consultant's early take on the '08 presidential election, and in particular the guy's 10-point guidelines for electoral success. Some of it manages to be non-stupid, but when I got to the last point I just about choked:

10. Winning is everything. And the only thing. As in 2004, Democrats want to win. Unlike 2004, they REALLY want to win. No candidate will secure the nomination whom they fear will lose to the Republican nominee. Electability is going to play a major role in 2008.

Didn't we go down this road already? I'm pretty sure we did, because David Brooks wrote this brilliant column on it two years ago (I think it was my favorite column of the election cycle). Now it must be acknowledged that our system encourages strategic voting. Certainly we've hashed that topic out in mind-numbing detail with Dave some time ago (the 'winner takes all vs. coalition government' argument). But this is just ridiculous.

As Brooks rightly notes, what we get is a bunch of Iowa liberals trying to predict who Palm Beach independents want to vote for. This would be strategic if their analysis wasn't so stultifyingly stupid. Invariably this leads to lots of primary voters watching TV and listening to pundits spewing out the breathtakingly idiotic conventional wisdom to find out who is "electable". But the TV pundits are watching the voters who are watching them (and are too stupid to find their way out of a paper bag on top of it). As Brooks again astutely points out, it's a gigantic post-modern circle-jerk, culminating in someone winning in Iowa and being anointed with the ultimate mark of electability, that of having just won an election. At this point the rest is perfunctory. I'll make one guarantee: the Democrats will end up with a more electable candidate if they vote for the candidate they feel in their hearts is the best candidate than they will if they play the electability game. God save us from another "electable" nominee. I don't think the party could survive it...

Snakes on a Plane

I don't know what's funnier: the concept and background of this movie, or the FARK thread it inspired. It's a heartwarming story, really, one of those rare moments when corporate America really gets it:

In any event, "Snakes"-ophiles already were hard at work. Chris Rohan of Bethesda, Md., created an elaborate, R-rated audio trailer that lovingly mocks the title and movie. "It's a genius title," Rohan said. "It's so stupid it's great. It invites satire, but it's something you just love. It's something I can't explain. You either get it or you don't."

The audio bit uses a Jackson sound-alike shouting, "I want these mother snakes off the mother plane!" Soon, the growing legion of fans added their voices as they demanded that that phrase also appear in the movie.

Apparently, the studio got the hint. When Ellis assembled Jackson and others for the recent shoot, the filmmakers added more gore, more death, more nudity, more snakes and more death scenes. And they shot a scene where Jackson does utter the line that fans have demanded.

This is going to be brilliant. I can just feel it...

The Lobbying Reform Bill

The Senate's lobbying reform bill passed today. It's kind of a joke really, but at least it serves as a roll call of senators who prefer more than token gestures (i.e. the 8 who voted against the bill):

Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK)(go figure...)
Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC)
Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI)
Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC)
Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) (I don't know why Inhofe voted against..)
Senator John Kerry (D-MA)
Senator John McCain (R-AZ)
Senator Barak Obama (D-IL)

The few, the proud, the U.S. Senators who care about our federal government.

Why Do We Care About Dirty Bombs?

I mean I know they've been a part of the scare-tactic arsenal for some time now (the terrorists have dirty bombs! like omigod!!), but hasn't the whole dirty bomb concept been pretty well debunked by now? Apparently not. It seems our border security is being tested based on whether or not they can prevent a dirty bomb from entering the U.S. Honestly, do these people not know how to use wikipedia?

If You Could Lock a Man Up...

...for violating Godwin's Law, Donald Rumsfeld would spend the rest of his life in the joint.

I Swear I'm Not Getting My Hopes Up...

Not again. Americans really have no right to complain about the quality of their presidential candidates. It seems like every four years at least one truly good candidate steps up. And then is promptly and utterly destroyed...

We've Got 'Em on the Run!

I haven't blogged anything for a month, but I really couldn't pass this by. Donald Rumsfeld wrote a column for the Washington Post to let us all know that our opponents know they're losing in Iraq. It was annoying at first when he would try to convince everyone that up was down, then it came to be funny, but now it's just kind of pathetic. The more the situation (and popular opinion of it) changes the more this man's bullshit stays exactly the same. It will be interesting to see how Iraq plays out in the mid-term elections. It is rapidly becoming very unpopular, but the Democrats still seem to be (as seen with Feingold's censure effort) incredibly squeamish over anything relating to security. If they drop the ball on this again, I will be physically ill.

Me Get Woman, Me Rule Earth

I am quite disappointed with Phillip Longman's article The Return of Patriarchy in the March/April 2006 issue of Foreign Policy. The main thrust of his article is that conservative patriarchies are on the rise because individuals in such family structures tend to propagate. In contrast, liberals are having fewer children, thus putting their viewpoints and belief systems in decline. I would like to discuss some points specifically:

1. "Fearful of a future in which the elderly outnumber the young, many governments are doing whatever they can to encourage people to have children."

This is not a critique of the article so much as the governments involved. Underlying the worry of falling fertility rates is the real problem: that each generation does not fund its own retirement. So long as this is the case, there will always be imbalances. The modern population should be allowed to find its new equilibrium, especially if it is declining. On a systems level, we tax the earth enough as it is. Why should we be promoting higher fertility when we don't truly need it? Let's fix the underlying problem.

2. "Indeed, falling fertility is a recurring tendency of human civilization. Why then did humans not become extinct long ago? The short answer is patriarchy."

Longman gives little evidence of recurring drops in fertility and even less evidence that patriarchy is what enabled humans to avoid extinction. I think the shortest answer here is sexual drive. Beyond that, it is likely that maternal behavior is the strongest factor in the survival of our species. This behavior is extremely potent and has genetic, neurobiological underpinnings. In other words, it is not simply learned.

3. Longman's main (if only) piece of evidence of his hypothesis is that states that voted for Bush in 2004 had a 12% higher fertility rate than Kerry states. What exactly does this mean? We don't know the belief compositions of these states, nor do we know whether liberals or conservatives (or somebody else) in these states are procreating more than others.

4. Let's assume for the moment that conservatives really are procreating more. Does this mean that an entire population will shift attitudes or beliefs? Of course not. Longman makes the assumption that the only way to spread one's beliefs is through genetic legacy (or perhaps familial legacy). His argument relies on the assumption that, by not having children, an individual's beliefs or attitudes simply die out. In contrast, I propose that those individuals who do not have children have all the more resources and time to spread their beliefs and attitudes throughout the world. My point is that his assumptions are far too simple for a system as complicated as culture.

5. "But as long as the patriarchal system avoids succumbing to these threats, it will produce a greater quantity of children, and arguably children of higher quality, than do societies organized by other principles, which is all that evolution cares about."

Evolution? I think it is a stretch to say that patriarchy is still under any selective pressure of evolution, as he is suggesting here. If he is referring to a sort of social evolution, then I will give him some leeway.

6. "Advanced societies are growing more patriarchal, whether they like it or not."

After reading the entire article, I have failed to see any good evidence for this. Perhaps one of you out there will see more.

Note that I have not taken any ideological position in these critiques. Rather, I think Mr. Longman has written a piece that appears to be more sensation-driven than logic- or data-driven. It is an interesting hypothesis, but with little to back it up, and with no consideration of plausible alternatives, it is just another man's opinion.

Peer Review Reviewed

As long as I have managed to log onto blogger I thought I ought to throw in a link to this article about the flaws of peer review. http://www.the-scientist.com/2006/2/1/26/1/. I am, as you know, skeptical of the quality of work that passes as scientific these days and I find that this article fits comfortingly into my way looking at these things.

I really do think that the system of peer review is seriously flawed. I think one of the central ways in which it is flawed is a result of the efforts that universities have made to quantify or make measurable their 'productivity'. The things that universities are intended to produce, like useful knowledge an educated populace and a thriving culture are very easy to observe subjectively but very difficult to observe 'scientifically'. The way that many universities have attempted to solve this problem is by making peer reviewed articles the ultimate measure of accomplishment. The result of this focus is that academic workers are forced to literally spam the journals with endless waves of content in order to attempt to drive up their stats. This flood of papers, most of them of little interest or significance, breaks down the whole system. People do not have the time to read the articles being published because there are so many. Reviewers cannot be overly critical lest their own careers be jeopardized by overly stringent reviewers (a sort of grade inflation one might say). There are so many papers to be reviewed and the people who are supposed to be reviewing them are so busy trying rattle off papers themselves that it is not at all surprising that so much junk flows through the system. Nor is it surprising that it is so difficult for those with truly worthy ideas to be heard amongst all the noise (the whole point of journals in the first place).

What is perhaps more troubling is how this system reflects on the university system as a whole. Just examining the way the journals ideally function raises some serious questions. Researchers, funded by the public, produce papers, supposedly in the interest of public knowledge, which are then reviewed by other researchers, also funded by the public, so that they can then become the property of journals that then charge the public institutions at which these researchers work for access to the very papers they paid to create. Astonishingly enough, it is the very universities, who appear to be exploited by this process, that lend the journals the legitimacy they then turn around and pay for. What particularly bothers me is that, not only are the universities paying journals for doing virtually nothing but they are compromising their fundamental purpose by allowing the products of their researchers to be locked away from the eyes of the public whom they purport to serve.

In the interest of brevity I will close my comments here by praising the people at MIT for their success in recognizing what their institution's fundamental purpose is. The founders of our universities, whose goal it was to promote the growth and dissemination of knowledge and culture, would have embraced the internet as the ideal tool for the job. If the modern leaders of our universities paid anything more than lip service to these ideals they would provide every bit of information that they possibly could to the public through the internet. This is what MIT is doing and I cannot praise them highly enough for their efforts.

Appropriately, I think, I will sign off with a link to a lecture about this very subject on the MITWorld Distributed Intelligence server (I came across it (it is one among several that I have listened to there on related topics) while searching for a different lecture that I thought was particularly relevant to my topic but which I have thus far failed to locate).

http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/72/

The Decline of Dollar Hegemony

Just came across a link to this speech about Dollar Hegemony (http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm). It lacks some of the more nuanced and subtle points, but the fact that it was delivered before the house of representatives pleases me. I do recall having read another speech on the same topic by Ron Paul in the past. You may also have seen it.

It is a shame that addressing the halls of congress is now merely a way of having one's sentiment officially entered into the record. If the house of representatives were actually a place of argument and debate something like this might spark a meaningful discussion about a pressing issue facing our nation. As things are, it will only serve as a testament to Mr. Paul's prescience after more serious problems arise.

Jared Diamond and Ishmael

I recently happened across this article on agriculture that Jared Diamond wrote in 1987. Had I seen it earlier I could have avoided wasting several hours reading Daniel Quinn's Ishmael. It basically says the same thing in a sliver of the space without being as awkwardly heavy-handed and pedantic.

Re: Putting Numbers on Surveillance

I think generally that the amount of tortured logic we've seen from this administration in their legal justifications for a lot of things is fairly astounding. This definition of surveillance is par for the course. Respect for the law is obviously a foreign concept to these folks. It seems more like a game to them. If you want to read a great legal analysis of the NSA flap, a bunch of well-known legal academics and former high-level legal officials have written a very thorough and detailed piece for the New York Book Review.

The Promise of Nuclear Energy

For a country that is "addicted to oil", there is surprisingly little discussion of a readily available and potentially safe form of energy: nuclear fission. Concerns about fission have been understandable, namely long-lived, hazardous waste products, the potential for use of nuclear waste in developing weapons for terrorists, and reactor safety.

In the recent article Scientific American: Smarter Use of Nuclear Waste [ ENERGY ], authors Hannum, Marsh, and Stanford detail a combination of new technologies that would essentially obviate these concerns. The approach involves a combination of fast nuclear reactors and pyrometallurgical processing (pyro). Currently, thermal nuclear reactors are typically used. These reactors use only about 5% of potential energy from nuclear fuel and create waste that requires some 10,000 years to decay to safe levels. Furthermore, the plutonium in the used fuel can be used to create nuclear weapons.

In contrast, fast reactors (already in use in Europe) burn a much greater percentage of the uranium/plutonium nuclear fuel, leading to a dramatic reduction in waste products. The real revolution will be pyro processing. A new technology, it involves reprocessing nuclear waste from thermal plants, separating unused nuclear fuel from waste products. The reprocessed fuel can then be used by fast reactors (not usable in the conventional thermal reactor). Unlike current reprocessing strategies, the reprocessed fuel is not suitable for nuclear weapons. Furthermore, the waste left over from this process requires only some 500 years to decay to safe levels, a dramatic reduction from current methods. Using this combination of technologies, some 99% of potential energy from nuclear fuel would be used.

In combining pyro with fast reactors, we would effectively have unlimited nuclear energy with minimal generation of waste products. Plutonium trafficking would be markedly reduced due to different processing methods. As far as safety is concerned, there are many ways to ensure a reactor is very safe (as an example, the authors detail building the whole reactor into the ground).

The authors estimate that, if we started now, the first such reactors combining these technologies would come online in 15 years. I am amazed that we haven't heard more discussion of this. I think there is a such a kneejerk negative reaction to the concept of nuclear power that politicians are afraid to approach it. Yet, this technology is already available and needs only to be expanded to a commercial scale.

Putting numbers on surveillance

The Washington Post has an article today that for the first time reveals the extent of the domestic surveillance program initiated by the NSA. In the past four years, some 5000 Americans have had "international" emails or phone calls intercepted. The administration claims that American lives have been saved because of this program, although there is no way to verify this. As it stands now, surveillance of purely domestic phone calls or emails still requires a warrant.

The article also provides some explanation as to why the administration circumvented FISA. Because this program has been of such low yield for information, it would easily be shown to be an unreasonable search given its unreliability. Hence, a violation of the 4th amendment.

In another insidious use of logic, NSA rules define surveillance as only occurring when a human examines surveillance data directly. The NSA is using more and more automated, computerized filtering systems that have the ability to scan large volumes of communications in the hopes of picking up information or patterns that could signal terrorist activity. Yet, only the hits that are actually examined by a human would be considered subject to possible legal protection.

This is a very slippery slope we are on. Intercepting terrorist communications is clearly important, but we can not allow it to come at the expense of speech and privacy. If it does, then the terrorists have already won. There needs to be an informed public debate about this, and it does not require divulging all details of current programs. If the government is listening in on me, I want to know about it.

The Economy: Full Steam Ahead

So... No jobs, no wages, but the economy is great. Hmm..

Be Careful What You Ask For

So Bill Kristol has been writing pretty consistently for a long time now about how the Bush administration needs to release all of the documents captured from Saddam. According to him these documents will vindicate all of the claims of serious and substantial ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Does Kristol seriously think the administration has not closely inspected the documents for this purpose? And does he think they wouldn't shout it to the world if they found something? Moreover, one wonders whether the administration's reticence to open this up to the public might have something to do with the fact that there is likely stuff in there about the Reagan administration and their serious and substantial ties to Saddam...

What in the hell is 'fellatiary'?

I never realized a linguistics blog could be so entertaining.

Taxation Without Representation?

This isn't cool. Withholding aid funds from Palestine I can see. But stealing their tax money? That I don't get. The fact that Israel collects Palestine's taxes and has control over what to do with the money argues strongly in favor of direct Palestinian representation in the Israeli government (i.e. the one-state solution). This, of course, is precisely what Sharon (and now Olmert) hoped to avoid through unilateral disengagement. (From the article: "[Olmert] declared that Israel must maintain a Jewish majority by relinquishing control over large parts of the West Bank and establishing clear boundaries...")

Playing Hardball With India

This is just a follow-up to the previous story about the US pressuring India over Iran. This report goes into a bit more depth on the relationship between the US and India vis a vis this nuclear treaty. Now, of course, Indian leaders are stuck with the problem of trying to look like they weren't cowed by the US if and when they do give in on this issue. I don't understand how this administration has failed to learn, after all this time, that when you want someone to alter their policy you need to leave room for them to change course gracefully. If you present it as a stark choice between the US and the people who voted them into office, they're not going to choose the US...

Honest Dialogue

I guess it's predictable, but I'm somewhat irked by all of the coverage of the Palestinian elections suggesting that this result somehow signals defeat for the US's policy of promoting democracy in the Middle East. I'm critical of the naivete of that policy for other reasons (primarily the fact that staging elections does not, by itself, make for a stable democratic government). But I don't see that criticism at play here. To the extent that we can successfully create democracy in the Middle East, I'm all for it. It's the implementation that I object to, not the objective. This was an exceptionally clean election, and one that signaled the importance of honest governance to the Palestinian people. Fatah symbolized the sort of corrupt and autocratic government that undermines democracy. Palestinians cleaned house on them, and now reports say that they are cleaning out their leadership. Palestine going forward will have two legitimate political parties, both of whom understand the importance of responsive, uncorrupt government to their voters, rather than deeply corrupt single-party rule. This is huge step forward for democracy in Palestine.

Moreover, I'm troubled by the assertion that because parties are elected in Middle Eastern nations that disfavor American policy (not just in Palestine; Egypt, Lebanon, Iran, and Saudi Arabia as well), this means democracy is bad. I've long thought that the dynamic that the US and Israel have tried to foster in Palestine is absurd. They have rejected talks with Hamas, with Arafat and Fatah, basically with anyone who could legitimately claim to represent the Palestinian people. Instead they would rather hand-pick a representative for Palestine (Abbas) and speak only with him. Indeed, they would frequently grow upset with Abbas for failing to bring the other Palestinians to heel. But how could he? He had no power over them, no democratic legitimacy. Fatah didn't respect him, Hamas didn't respect him, and I doubt the Palestinian people did either. How could he purport to speak on their behalf? How is it supposed to work that an agent in a negotiation is hand-picked by the adversaries of his principals? Under what theory of agency is this legitimate? It's absurd. Even if Israel had reached an agreement with Abbas, it could hardly have been expected to meaningfully bind the Palestinians.

The US and Israel may not like the actual positions of Palestinians, but they cannot hope to produce progress if they refuse to even address them. The important thing in these various elections is not that the party who favors American policy should win, but that the party who accurately represents the views of the voters should win. It's the voters we need to worry about and be engaged with, not politicians. Engaging in dialogue with politicians is important only to the extent that they are effective representatives of their constituents. If the general populace of the Middle East dislikes American policy, that is not a fact that can be swept under the rug based on models of governance. We have had many US-friendly dictators around the Middle East, and it has not solved our problems. In fact it has made them worse by allowing us to ignore legitimate complaints of the general populace. There needs to be honest dialogue, and that can only happen when there are political leaders who can truly represent the interests of their people. To the extent that elections like the one in Palestine produce that, we are all better off.

Nuclear Politics

India is apparently not very happy with the U.S. position on Iran's nuclear policy. I don't know a whole lot about South Asian politics (and apparently neither does the State Department), but I find this to be interesting. It seems that India and Iran are getting on pretty well. One suspects that China may also want to make friends with Iran, as Iran is in need of friends these days, and China could use some oil partners who aren't too far under the sway of the U.S. Russia has also had good relations with Iran, as they've been the ones setting up the Iranian nuclear program. If these guys are willing to back Iran at the U.N., that's a pretty formidable coalition, one that the U.S. and Europe may have a hard time overcoming. This could be very interesting.

Fatah Down in Flames

Holy crap. I always thought Hamas carried a lot of popular support from Palestinians, but I didn't anticipate this. The political fallout will be fascinating. As I've said in the past, I think this is probably for the best. Once Israel gets past its initial shock and revulsion, there will finally be an opportunity for negotiations with the potential for real results.

Update: The Newshour showed some lengthy clips of a Bush press conference where he discussed the election outcome. I hesitate to use the word "nuance" in the same sentence as President Bush, but I thought he did a good job. He put on pressure regarding the whole 'destruction of Israel' thing, but did not vilify Hamas more than necessary and strongly acknowledged the positive role of functional democracy with real competing parties in Palestine. He acknowledged that Hamas maybe could provide better domestic services and was not as corrupt as Fatah and did not give the impression that Palestinians were evil or stupid to elect them. I think that's about the right position to take. Western nations should continue to apply pressure against some of the more repulsive parts of the Hamas platform. But that should be balanced with an acknowledgment that they are the legitimate government that they have made positive contributions to Palestinian society and can continue to do so. Pressure is good. I think I could even get on board with a policy that there be no aid or negotiations until Hamas drops their charter demand for the destruction of Israel. I would probably draw the line, however, at demands that Hamas permanently renounce violence prior to negotiations. For one, I don't think it would happen. For another, I don't think it is fair unless Israel made the same pledge (which would obviously be problematic as regards their policing power in the occupied territories). Also it's not as if Fatah's renunciation of violence ever meant anything. It's no secret that they had a militant wing that continued to carry out attacks. I would hate to see the peace process derailed by a superficial pissing match of that sort. In any case, so far so good. Now we'll have to wait and see how the leadership structure shakes out for Hamas and how this affects the upcoming Israeli elections...

Best Music Video Ever?

Oh my. I'm not sure if that tops the Total Eclipse video, but it's close...

The Confirmation Process Confirms the Worst

I have paid some attention to the Alito hearings out of professional interest, and this weekend I tried to take a step back and think about what value the hearings have, if any, for the "weakest branch" and for our political system in general. I think the process does have value, but it is not for the reasons that many people might think at first.

First, it is hard to ignore the observation of Senator Arlen Specter that a nominee will answer only as many questions as he or she thinks is necessary to get confirmed. But is that bad? It should not be surprising to anyone that, when the same party controls the Presidency and the Congress, a nominee will be given more latitude and it is really his or her nomination to lose, rather than a burden to prove that the person reaches toward the mainstream. Even where the confirmation process is friendly, it still provides an opportunity to weed out nominees that have bad temperment or really bad judgment, and I think that is the best we can hope for. Judge Alito has good judgment and good temperment, therefore he will be confirmed.

But, some may say, he is really conservative and is bound to overturn important Supreme Court precedent that protects the fundamental rights of citizens. Well, if that were an important value to most people, and if it is true that Judge Alito would in fact work against these things, then he should never have gotten nominated in the first place. The failure, then, is not the confirmation process but the political process that allowed President Bush to appoint him.

Second, no one should accept for a minute that politics does not matter when it comes to judicial decisionmaking. That is to say, the Constitution was not written in such a way that allows individuals to determine the right answer every time, entirely divorced from value. What does "cruel and unusual" mean in an objective sense? "Unreasonable" searches and seizures? Who gets to decide whether the President is "faithfully" executing the laws, and what standard do you apply to decide that? Political leanings, upbringing, morays--these things will always come into play in deciding legal questions. Judges are humans, and the law (in the sense that we talk of it being decided in courtrooms, anyway) is a human creation.

I guess my overarching point is that liberal democrats should assume the worst as far as Judge Alito's conservative views, but it is a little too late to be worrying about that. The best we can hope for is a judge that is humble and willing to recognize that the law is not black and white, and is willing to take other people's views into account. And nothing I saw in the confirmation process gave me too much cause for concern on that score.

Will Judge Alito vote to overturn, or severely cutback on, Roe? Probably. Will he often find himself in agreement with Scalia and Thomas? Probably. But those things would not make him a bad judge, in my view. What matters most to me is that he does not believe the black robe gives him special access to the truth.

A Reporter's Peril

As a Christian Science Monitor junkie, I just wanted to point out the story of Jill Carroll, a reporter working for CSM in Iraq who has been abducted by insurgents. Her interpreter was killed.

A few days ago I was reading an article in the Atlantic that Ryan gave me written by one of their reporters, Nir Rosen, who has "spent sixteen months in postwar Iraq living mostly among ordinary Iraqis." I was somewhat amazed, at the time, that there were still foreign reporters living outside the green zone in Iraq. Given the poor quality of much of our news reporting I am all the more appreciative of the exceptional bravery and talent of reporters from outfits like CSM and The Atlantic. It takes balls of steel. I salute them all (and their Iraqi associates), and I hope and pray that Ms. Carroll makes it out safely.

p.s. Rosen's article, If America Left Iraq, is an excellent and informative read.

Econfusius say--

(1) Make your cheap products look bad, sell more; and
(2) Echoing Yogi Berra: No one goes to the mall immediately after Christmas anymore, because it's too crowded.

Tim Harford, a columnist for the Financial Times and author of the recently published book the The Undercover Economist, apparently seeking to ride the pop-econ wave of Freakonomics, had this article in yesterday's Slate.com explaining why Starbucks offers the "short" cappuccino for the person on a budget, but it doesn't want you to find out about it. Here's a hint at what Harford is getting at: he says its the same reason why airports make their ordinary lounge so damn uncomfortable.

And in this piece in FT, Harford attempts to explain that the post-holiday sales are really bad for everyone--and then compares government subsidies to post-holiday sales.

I agree with the theory Harford propounds/summarizes in the first article, although I have some difficulties with the contentions he makes in the second piece. To be sure, there are some instances in which the Government or some other third party "distorts" the market such that, as Harford puts it, "tremendous amounts of money are spent but the beneficiaries are scarcely better off, if at all." In my view, however, there are clearly instances where subsidies do in fact make people better off: to take a straightforward example, there are certain products (such as cars) the market just does not price well because they generate a positive or negative benefit (pollution, for instance) that is not fully captured by the buying or selling party. The government, through subsidies or taxes--the traditional economist views subsidies and taxes as the same--can adjust the price so that consumption more closely mirrors what one would expect if all the factors were taken into account. (Hank, if you are reading this, and you disagree, please throw your hat in the ring. I would love to read what you have to say on this.)

I also think it is a little shady to analogize post-holiday sales to government hand-outs. For one thing, the post-holiday slash-and-burn pricing could be explained by the fact that stores are trying to unload one season's products at any price above marginal value, or for that matter, below-marginal value, if the product's lifespan is truly limited.

Silly Libertarians

I was really hoping this article/speech by Bradley Smith, former FEC commissioner, would give me a chance to discuss the substantive objections to campaign finance reform. Then the guy referred to the Microsoft antitrust litigation as a "seemingly senseless regulatory legal assault" intended to extract campaign contributions from Microsoft. Uhh, right. It's amazing how quickly a person can drag their credibility through the gutter.

Smith's analysis of the harms of unregulated campaign money is largely limited to efforts to find quid pro quo returns on investment for corporate contributors. He takes this as far as analysis of the stock market reaction to McConnell v. FEC for companies that make political soft money contributions. What is this supposed to prove?

This sort of analysis is overly complex and makes it difficult to produce any sort of meaningful empirical data. What sort of scorecard do you use here? There is plenty of anecdotal evidence of influence (not least of which the Microsoft example that Smith himself raised). Smith acknowledges that the data he presents has many critics, but claims that since they don't have better data, that makes his data somehow valid.

A simpler analysis is this: our system is based on democratic, one person-one vote principles. Does campaign money subvert those principles? Does it give influence beyond one-vote to big money donors?

In this view the analysis of harms should be considered from the other end. Does the money influence election outcomes? According to opensecrets.org, the odds of a challenger for a house seat in 2000 beating an incumbent were nil for challengers who raised under $500k, 24:1 for challengers with $500k-$1m, 15:1 for challengers with $1m-$1.5m, and 3:1 for challengers with over $1.5m. That looks a lot like influence. Obviously there are still confounding factors here (primarily that one might suppose that campaign money flows to more attractive candidates). But this seems like more meaningful data than the sort referenced by Smith. Additionally you've got quotes like this one (one of my all-time favorites) from Senator Fritz Hollings:

"The body politic has got a cancer of money. I ran in 1998, and I raised $8.5 million. That's about $30,000 a week, each week, every week, for six years. If I missed Christmas and New Year's weeks, I'm $100,000 in the hole. So the race begins the next day [after your election]. We're collecting for six years out. That means we don't work on Monday. We don't work on Friday. I've got to get money, money, money, money. And I only listen to the people who give me money. With the shortage of time and everything else, you've got to listen to the $1,000 givers. I mean, no individual is corrupt, but the body has been corrupted."

It seems, to me at least, fairly obvious that money impacts election results. It seems also obvious that this gives political power to people who wield that money. That is problematic for a one person-one vote system. Smith never discusses this problem.

But he does talk about other evidence of corruption, apparently to show that BCRA is insincere. The hiring of spouses and children of politicians as lobbyists, contributions to personal foundations, and book contracts, for example. Frankly this only amplifies the need for regulation of money in politics. If anything this should support expanding BCRA into broader territory.

Smith criticizes McCain for speaking at a fund-raising dinner for the Brennan Center that raised money to support BCRA and to help defend it against McConnell's legal challenge. Apparently McCain also raises money to support campaign finance reform through his own Reform Institute. This is the sort of self-defeating argument often leveled at McCain and Feingold and other finance reformers: how can they argue for campaign finance reform when they accept the sort of contributions they argue against? A better question would be: if their argument is premised on the fact that the current political environment makes it necessary to raise large sums of money to get anything accomplished, how could McCain and Feingold hope to accomplish anything without raising money? Only people in the system can change the system. They have to play the game to change the rules. And ultimately this is not a discussion of the substantive merits of the issue anyway. It is merely smear attack against proponents of reform.

Here's an interesting thought I'd like to see some of these folks discuss. The Supreme Court appears to be increasingly coming under the control of Scalian originalists. There is a strong argument to be made that the original meaning for the First Amendment was merely to prevent prior restraint of speech. This was a system used in England where printers needed to get prior government authorization of material to be printed. The Sedition Act of 1798, for example, seems to our sensibilities to be a clear violation of the First Amendment. But no one seriously thought it was a violation at the time, and the courts never struck it down. The Republican (Jeffersonian) reaction against the Act was politically motivated (it was a Federalist device to squelch Republican press) and focused on the issue of federalism rather than the First Amendment. It did not implement prior restraint, and it allowed truth as a defense. This was free speech as compared to the English system. An originalist interpretation of the First Amendment would create a tremendous amount of breathing room for campaign regulation. I wonder how keen some of the conservative court cheerleaders would be for that..

The Cold War Wasn't So Cold

Timothy Noah has a great column on Slate about post-Cold War decline of global violence. Noah rightly points out that while the Cold War may have been cold for Americans and Soviets, it was hot as can be for many third world nations where we staged proxy wars. These, not coincidentally, are many of the nations we now refer to as "failed states" and worry about as sources of terrorism. This is an important element of framing in the GWOT discussion. It is easy for diplomats and statesmen to get caught up in the Great Game, but nations and peoples are not chess pieces and this is a game more complex and unpredictable than our leaders generally imagine.

Stop Being So Damned Sensible, RJ Samuelson

Samuelson on presidents and the economy. This guy puts other political writers to shame every week. He is the guru of Reality-Based Policy.

Democracy Doesn't Mean You Can Vote for Hamas

Speaking of problems with democracy.. CSM reports that Hamas is appearing increasingly dominant in Palestinian elections. First off, I told you so. That aside, the E.U. and the U.S. are quite unhappy about this turn of events and are threatening repercussions should Hamas gain a majority of the Palestinian legislative council. Not so excited about democracy anymore? It's not at all clear yet that Hamas could win a national majority, but if they do, the E.U. will demand that they renounce violence or forfeit aid money (as if that ever stopped Arafat's Fatah party from doing anything). The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed a resolution threatening to cut off all support for the Palestinian Authority if Hamas has any participation in the government.

This is pure stupidity. I've argued before, and I'm sure I'll argue again, that there will not be a peaceful settlement of this conflict without Hamas' participation. They already have an effective veto over the process through violence, which they exercised over the Oslo agreement. It sure seems like it would be better for everyone if they could exercise their veto through voting in the Palestinian legislature rather than through detonating bombs in cafes in Jerusalem. Here there is an opportunity to mainstream Hamas, to bring political leaders within the organization to its front and into legitimate negotiating positions, and to support and strengthen Palestinian democracy, all in one blow. And it looks like we want to squander the opportunity...

Spreading Democracy

I haven't had a Democracy is Hard to Do(TM) post for a while, so here's a good one. Fred Kaplan discusses a book called Electing to Fight in relation to the recent elections in Iraq. The book argues that emerging democracies are more prone to violence and instability than any other type of government, and stresses the importance of establishing democratic institutions over holding elections. They see all the hallmarks of disaster in the emerging Iraqi government. Established democracies, they agree, tend to be peaceful. But the process of democratizing is dangerous and loaded with pitfalls.

A Healthy Change for the Military

I've complained about this more than a few times, so I'd like to give some recognition where it's due. It seems the U.S. military has (somewhat belatedly) realized that peace-making and peace-keeping (that dreaded nation-building stuff) is an important part of their mission and something that they should train their soldiers to do. This may come too late for Iraq, but it's a step in the right direction.

The End of Faith, God Willing

I recently finished reading Sam Harris' book The End of Faith. It was a fascinating read that really made me rethink the utility and danger of faith, most prominently demonstrated by religion. In particular, Harris is concerned by faith that is out of reach of both criticism and debate. This is especially dangerous in the Big Three religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), all of which claim that their religion is the only true religion and that those not subscribing to it are damned. Thus the setup for inevitable conflict. The only reason that Christianity has mellowed, Harris claims, is due to secular influences. I would very much agree.

Such criticism of faith and religion is not new. What was new to me, however, were Harris' criticisms of religious moderates. He claims that moderates are complicit in the acts of terrorism or harm done by religious extremists. Because moderates believe in at least some of the dogma of a given religion, they have no grounds on which to argue against a completely literal interpretation of the religious text. In other words, they are on the same spectrum of belief as the extremist, where at some level their faith becomes dissociated from reason.

Harris covers a broad range of topics in the book. One I would like to mention is torture, given the recent press coverage and Joe's recent post (see Torture Nation, 10/7). Harris' arguments were a little harder to follow here, but I believe his main thrust is that torture is no different than collateral damage caused in a war. In other words, in fighting a war, both are potential unfortunate consequences necessary to succeed. He seems to forget about intention through all of this: there is certainly no intention to kill innocent bystanders in a war (although we might expect this to happen), but there is clearly intention to torture someone as a means to an end.

With that said, I continue to struggle with the torture issue. In the oft-cited example, a captive holds information about a bomb he has planted that will kill thousands of people, but he is unwilling to give that information. Should he be subject to torture that we might save thousands of lives? Assuming we know him to be guilty and involved, the answer is clearly yes from a utilitarian perspective. And yet, therein lies the potential of gross misuse of torture, for how can we ever truly know whether we have the right man? Is the information gained by torture reliable? From a practical standpoint at least, there are many doubts about cost-benefit of torture.

I would encourage everyone out there to read Harris' book (by the way, Harris has a degree in philosophy and is a doctoral candidate in neuroscience - I love him already). I would also love to hear any discussion on these issues. Some excerpts from the book you might enjoy:

“Tell a devout Christian that his wife is cheating on him, or that frozen yogurt can make a man invisible, and he is likely to require as much evidence as anyone else, and to be persuaded only to the extent that you give it. Tell him that the book he keeps by his bed was written by an invisible deity who will punish him with fire for eternity if he fails to accept its every incredible claim about the universe, and he seems to require no evidence whatsoever.” (page 19)

“We live in an age in which most people believe that mere words— ‘Jesus,’ ‘Allah,’ ‘Ram’—can mean the difference between eternal torment and bliss everlasting. Considering the stakes here, it is not surprising that many of us occasionally find it necessary to murder other human beings for using the wrong magic words, or the right ones for the wrong reasons. How can any person presume to know that this is the way the universe works? Because it says so in our holy books. How do we know that our holy books are free from error? Because the books themselves say so. Epistemological black holes of this sort are fast draining the light from our world.” (page 35)

Fuck Iowa and New Hampshire

Pardon my language, but seriously. I can't believe this is the best we can do to remove their nominating privilege. And still they bitch and complain. Let them have their primaries last, I say. Actually, I say let's have a national primary. Please! I understand that arguments about how this would decrease attention to the individual states (particularly small states), and I sympathize with that. But the way the press covers these things (something around 80% of the coverage is coverage of the "horse race" rather than coverage of candidates and issues), and the way people react to it (voters in later primaries vote to reward winners in early primaries), the primaries are effectively over after the first 4-5 states. Better to have the states get less personal attention than to have the same five states select the presidential nominee and have everyone else locked out of the process.

Memo to South Korea

Dear South Korea,

Apparently you have not figured out how this antitrust thing works. The proper procedure after you find Microsoft guilty of multiple antitrust violations is to roll over and play dead. Alternately you could send Bill Gates a fruit cake. Certainly you don't make them remove Windows Messenger from their operating system, because that harms customers, who obviously have no reason to want Windows without Messenger. Please try to learn from our example.

Thanks,
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division

Gold Rush

It's been some time since I've posted anything on currency issues. It appears Henry was ahead of the curve on investing in gold. Gold recently hit a 22-year high, and is getting a fair amount of attention from the press. The very fact of this attention may signal that the market has already made its move, at least for now. But score one for the anti-fiat-currency libertarians...

Torture Nation

I had thought that the Bush administration's policies favoring torture grossly misrepresented America's values to the world. Apparently not. The polling data at the bottom of this CSM story little more than a third of Americans believe that torture should not be used in interrogations. A slightly higher number favor the use of torture "sometimes" or "often". Have we always been like this? Or has the media's "fairness" on this controversy (treating both sides as substantively equal) legitimized torture for some Americans? It's disturbing in any case...

Stylin' Like Saddam

Ths is weird, yet somehow predictable...

The Sweet Smell of Corruption

CSM is also running a wonderful editorial on corruption in Congress. It still burns me up how many people argue against campaign finance reform...

Expert Opinions on Iraq

CSM has a bit on a Strategic Studies Institute report on the continuing occupation of Iraq. The authors doubt that the U.S. will be able to put down the insugency before leaving, or train Iraqi security forces sufficiently to do the job themselves. Moreover, they suggest that the U.S. start to consider that an undemocratic government may be necessary to create a stable Iraq. Additionally they argue that a timetable for withdrawal would not be helpful.

There is also a link to an NPR interview with a former director of the NSA, who argues that the best thing we can do for democracy in Iraq is leave now.

The Brick Testament

It never ceases to amaze me what people put on the internet. Brilliant.

So Stupid It Hurts

So we're planting P.R. pieces in Iraqi media outlets. I can't say I'm shocked. As some of the comments in the story point out, these sorts of stunts continue to drag our credibility through the mud. I can't help but recall the Defense Science Board's insightful Report on Strategic Communication (blogged here). Now a year old, I still believe it to be the single most intelligent document on the War on Terror. The report stated:

"Information saturation means attention, not information, becomes a scarce resource. Power flows to credible messengers. Asymmetrical credibility matters. What's around information is critical. Reputations count. Brands are important. Editors, filters, and cue givers are influential. Fifty years ago political struggles were about the ability to control and transmit scarce information. Today, political struggles are about the creation and destruction of credibility."

There are some very smart people in our government. Sad that nobody pays attention to them. Al Qaeda doesn't need to destroy our credibility. We do it to ourselves, over and over and over again.

Exercises In Futility

I feel somehow obligated to blog articles where some poor idealistic fool writes about the budget deficit and fiscal discipline. As if anyone cared. I have to say I like the line about the House deficit reduction plan giving new meaning to the phrase "women and children first" (I wish Holt would have said who originated it).

Random thought: I know there are various organizations that send questionnaires to political candidates to survey their positions on various issues. I'd like to see one in the form of a spreadsheet that provides an extremely dumbed down version of the federal budget (ie. on the income side provide the rates of the major tax brackets (with built in calculations to reflect the revenue change that results from adjustments to the rates) and an "other" category encompassing everything else, on the spending side have military (including foreign interventions), social security, medicare/medicaid, homeland security, and "other" encompassing everything else). On one line have the actual numbers as of this year. On the next line invite the candidate to fill in the budget that they would institute if they were king. I'm tired of politicians talking about reducing the deficit, but never committing to any sacrifice (on either the tax side or spending) that would make it happen. This system would apply a very simple reality check to the usual B.S. rhetoric.

Can This Be Real?

Cuz it kind of looks like it is. The U.S. denies it, while the UK seems more concerned with supressing the potentially incriminating evidence, but the story going around is that Bush wanted to bomb Al Jazeera. In Qatar. And wasn't joking. Reportedly, Blair talked him out of it. I imagine his exact words were something like: "Are you out of your fucking mind, you daft bastard?!" Just when you think you've heard it all...

Update: Howard Kurtz had the same reaction - "can this possibly be real?" His conclusion? No, based on the fact that it would be unbelievably stupid. Like that's ever stopped this administration before... I think the least credible part of the story is the fact that Bush would run it by Blair before he did it.

Idiot America

Consider this a follow-up to my Defense of Intellectualism from Sept. 5. There is an Esquire article by Charles Pierce rambling across blogs and internet message boards titled Greetings from Idiot America, reprinted in full in many cases (almost certainly without permission, but what the hell). Here's one of the reprints. It is, I think, an issue of critical importance, but one on which I have no idea how we can gain traction. One would hope that the utter disaster that has been Bush's gut-based presidency would have some impact, but the man did after all win reelection...

The Murtha Discussion

Aside from the laughable attempts to tar Congressman Jack Murtha as a coward or Michael Moore, the more serious conservative response to Murtha's proposal to leave Iraq is well stated by neocons Bob Kagan and Bill Kristol in this Weekly Standard article. Murtha gave no consideration to the consequences of our leaving Iraq, they complain. The Iraqi military lacks the capacity to stand on its own, they argue (sidenote: but haven't we been constantly hearing about the many thousands of Iraqi troops who have been trained for a couple years now? I guess that was all BS. But then we already knew that..). There could be civil war, and in any case it will be a huge victory for Al Qaeda, they worry.

I think these are good considerations and important points, but they miss a fundamental preliminary question: can we still win in Iraq? Because if we can't, every point raised by Kagan and Kristol is utterly irrelevant. Murtha argues that it is a lost cause. Unless that point is rebutted, his position must prevail over Kagan and Kristol's. They answer this charge with the flat statement that "victory is in fact possible, though it will require a longer war than anyone would like." That is not at all clear to me.

I have been (and remain) reluctant to abandon the mission in Iraq owing simply to the magnitude of our current obligation to the Iraqi people and the high stakes that Kagan and Kristol detail. However, I am becoming increasingly doubtful about our long term prospects for success in Iraq. I see no signs of the insurgency slowing or Iraqi government gaining control. As Murtha noted, the Iraqis don't want us there, and, in fact, at least some Iraqi leaders view the insurgency as legitimate resistance to occupation. There was a column by Helena Cobban (a CSM foreign affairs columnist) that I thought I had blogged (although it appears I never did) from the summer that presents a credible argument that our presence in Iraq is no longer helping matters. At this point I think we have to look very seriously at whether it is worth staying. I am on the threshold. The prospect of a civil war in Iraq worries me greatly. But if all we are doing is delaying it until our eventual and inevitable withdrawal, we are performing no great service. No matter the stakes, if we can no longer win this war, or if we are making matters worse by staying, we must withdraw.

In this case, Kagan and Kristol's points only go to underscore the general stupidity of the Iraq war in the first place. It was always a gamble of the highest stakes with dubious prospects of success. We have paid a high price for it already in many regards (casualties, money, reputation). Now whether we choose to remain or withdraw, the price will only escalate. I wonder if it is only now that the magnitude of this blunder is beginning to settle in for the neocons.

In the end, I believe this to be a more costly mistake than Vietnam. Where in Vietnam our policy was driven mostly by paranoia of communist dominoes falling (which never actually occurred), here I agree with Kagan and Kristol that this would be a victory for Al Qaeda of real importance. Al Qaeda has operated under the belief, drawn from U.S. interventions in Vietnam, Lebanon, and Somalia, and the Soviet experience in Afghanistan, that the West is weak and has no stomach for fighting. This is a fundamental element of their strategic approach and philosophy. And here, in the most high profile arena possible, we may prove them right. Nonetheless, we cannot allow this to obscure reality in making our choice. If truly this is a lost cause we must not throw more good lives and money after bad. Our military has been courageous and true, and we owe it to them. To quote John Kerry (from when he used to be cool): "How can you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

A 21st Century Rivalry

There's a good story on CSM about China's growing military capacity. In particular it describes a rapidly growing modern core group within the military. It predictably focuses on China's improved ability to challenge the U.S. in Taiwan, but I think the more interesting issues lie further in the future and on a much broader scope.

It's a pretty common meme at this point that China is poised to emerge as a top global rival to the U.S. Assuming that China's economy continues to grow at a rapid rate (and there are some potential problems there, particularly in the banking system) this seems almost inevitable. But I think suppositions that this would somehow mirror the Cold War are dead wrong. I'm not sure how this rivalry would unfold, but I highly doubt that it would resemble the Cold War. The contours of the Cold War were defined by the all-encompassing differences in the economic systems of the two sides that made the complete severing of ties between them possible and desirable.

The key to China's growth has been the modernizing of its economy and its embrace of free trade. The U.S. and China a crucial trade partners, and I don't see that changing. While China will undoubtedly become more assertive in its foreign policy and more apt to challenge the U.S. as its military and economic power grows, there will be a huge economic incentive for China and U.S. not to let things get out of hand. Of course, both sides will need to be wary, as nationalism can lead people to do stupid things, and no doubt there will be domestic political points to be scored by railing against the other side (indeed this is already the case in the U.S.). Flashpoints will emerge and tensions will flare. But money speaks loudly, and I think will hold things together in this case. The dynamic between the U.S. and China will likely be something we haven't seen before.

Another Leak Investigation?

In the wake of the Washington Post's story on the CIA's secret detention facilities, it appears that we may see another high profile leak investigation. The CIA has requested that DOJ investigate the matter and pursue criminal charges for the release of classified information. Likewise (also mentioned in the NYT story) several top House and Senate Republicans have called for a joint Intelligence Committee investigation into the leak. Already several reports are drawing comparisons to the Judy Miller story (see Howard Kurtz's 11/14 column). I think this story would provide an excellent contrast to the Miller story.

The problem with Judy Miller's effort to hide behind press secrecy protection is that the facts of her case flew in the face of the intent of such protections. The idea is to protect whistle blowers and encourage them to bring to light topics, otherwise hidden from the public, that may be critical to the public discourse and democratic oversight of government actions. Judy Miller exposed details meant to crucify one such whistle blower, details that were otherwise irrelevant to the public discourse. Nor was it a simple or direct impeachment of Joe Wilson's credibility or an attack on the substance of his reports. The Plame story was simply an effort create insinuations about Wilson's qualifications and generally besmirch his reputation and possibly (depending on what you're willing to believe about Libby and Rove) to exact revenge by ruining Plame's career. Hardly a lofty testament to the value of an independent press.

The Post's CIA detainee story, by contrast, contained exactly the sort of critical information that the public deserves to see, and should be given every available legal protection. This is not to say that there should be no oversight of how classified information is exposed or that press organizations should not exercise caution in disclosing it (as the Post did in refusing to name the countries where the detainment centers are located). This was information that the public did not know and had no reason to suspect about government policies that go directly to the heart of what our values are and how we conduct ourselves.

This will admittedly cause difficulties for the CIA in its effort to continue to pursue these policies, difficulties that the CIA can claim impair its mission and endanger national security, but these difficulties arise from the outrageousness of the conduct itself. I fail to see how the exposure of this information will in any way impact on the actions of Al Qaeda relative to the CIA, nor the actions of the CIA relative to Al Qaeda, except to the extent that this is now propaganda for Al Qaeda and a source of domestic and international political problems for the CIA. This is not the case of an agent or undercover program that, once exposed, can no longer no long serve the assigned mission. Secrecy is not critical to the function of a prison camp. The exposure of these policies hurt the U.S. and the CIA not because it imposes functional problems, but because the policies are stupid.

The only reason they were likely secret in the first place was probably to avoid political fallout, in both the U.S. and the host countries. That is not, to my mind, a valid reason for government secrecy. If a democratic country allows its government to conceal its actions because the public would not like those actions, something has gone seriously wrong. If some investigation does arise from this leak, I certainly hope that a critical element of that investigation is to discover why exactly the public did not know about these facilities prior to the leak and to inquire into the validity of the profferred justifications for concealing the facilities.

Michael Brown: A Man of Rare Quality and Genious

From the Department of Homeland Security email archives and the AP:

From Marty Bahamonde (DHS) to Michael Brown, Aug. 31, 2005:

Sir, I know that you know the situation is past critical. Here some things you might not know.
Hotels are kicking people out, thousands gathering in the streets with no food or water.
Hundreds still being rescued from homes.

The dying patients at the DMAT tend being medivac. Estimates are many will die within hours. Evacuation in process. Plans developing for dome evactuation but hotel situation adding to problem. We are out of food and running out of water at the dome, plans in works to address the critical need.

FEMA staff is OK and holding own. DMAT staff working in deplorable conditions. The sooner we can get the medical patients out, the sooner wecan get them out.

Phone connectivity impossible.

More later.
-------------------

Michael Brown's reply to Marty Bahamonde, Aug. 31:

Thanks for the update. Anything specific I need to do or tweak?

-------------------

Later:

Brown press secretary Sharon Worthy to Cindy Taylor (DHS) and others:

Also, it is very important that time is allowed for Mr. Brown to eat dinner. Gievn that Baton Rouge is back to normal, restaurants are getting busy. He needs much more that 20 or 30 minutes. We now have traffic to encounter to get to and from a location of his choise, followed by wait service from the restaurant staff, eating, etc.

-----------------

Bahamonde to Taylor:

OH MY GOD!!!!!!!! No won‘t go any further, too easy of a target. Just tell her that I just ate an MRE and crapped in the hallway of the Superdome along with 30,000 other close friends so I understand her concern about busy restaurants. Maybe tonight I will have time to move my pebbles on the parking garage floor so they don‘t stab me in the back while I try to sleep.
-----------------

This stuff is pure gold! Laugh all you want, but please do keep in mind that Michael Brown is, in his own words, "a fashion god."

What Passes for Fiscal Discipline

Here's CSM's story on the budget reduction plan now circulating on the hill. Not that I have strong feelings on this or anything, but it's an insult to the American people. First off, as a effort at fiscal discipline, it's a non-starter. You're looking a reduction of the deficit over the next five years by 2% (Senate) or 2.5% (House). Completely inconsequential. And the House bill appears to be laser-targeted at items sure to infuriate liberals: student loans, child support enforcement, food stamps, etc. Then, just for fun, they tacked on the ANWR thing. And these people are still talking tax cuts... The only thing that infuriates me more than the federal government ignoring half trillion dollar deficits is that when they actually apply time and effort to dealing with it the results are a sick joke. This bill is a slap in the face to anyone who cares about actual fiscal discipline. Fortunately for proponents of the bill, that appears to be a vanishingly small number of people, and none that they are at risk of encountering in Congress.

Analyzing Alito

In the Washington Post, Cass Sunstein provides a measured look at Alito's appellate record. I have no doubt that we have a major political battle at hand, but Democrats will face a tough challenge in that Alito's record does not look to be any more conservative than Scalia's, and, by Sunstein's analysis, it might be less so. How would a filibuster be justified here when Scalia was confirmed 98-0? There will likely have to be arguments external to the judge's personal record, in reference to the overall balance of the Court or some such thing. This may take the form of arguments that Alito is not just taking any seat on the Court, but he is replacing O'Connor, a relative moderate, in whose mold the replacement should be cast. I've seen this argument implied in several places already, and I'm not sure it makes much sense. It is difficult to find historical or policy justifications for the idea that the Court needs to adhere to some particular partisan structure or another. In general I think this will be a tough fight for the opposition. Their best approach will probably be to tie this nomination as closely as possible to the White House and try to make the confirmation into a referendum on George Bush to capitalize on his falling popularity.

Update: On Alito-Scalia comparisons, Robert Gordon of the Center for American Progress (a liber think-tank) makes the case on Slate that Alito is more extreme than Scalia.

Update (11/02): For some balance, here a CSM story suggests that Alito is not a hardliner on abortion.

Yet Another Update (11/03): I had to add a link to this rebuttal to the CSM column UVA's own Richard Schragger.

A Rival to NATO?

There's an article on CSM about the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, a military alliance potentially involving China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Iran, and the various -stans. It's an interesting idea, but do these countries have anything in common other than an interest in increasing their influence? It would be an extremely potent group, one that probably could rival NATO in power in coming decades, but I have a hard time seeing any coherent policies or positions that these nations could all agree on.

Not Our Biggest Fans

(Or 'How Gerhard Schröder Made a Career Out of Dissing Americans') CSM has an interesting column on how Katrina played in recent German elections. I'm curious how much of this will persist after 2008...

Friendly Fire

The more this Harriet Miers thing goes on, the funnier I think it is. Like this article on Laura Bush rebuffing Miers critics. What could be funnier than this scenario: The White House nominates a lame candidate. Conservatives criticize the candidate. The White House, as it has done a hundred times before, responds to criticism by shooting the messenger. Conservative critics say, "Hey! Wait a second! It's us! Hold your fire. We're not sexist pigs!" Pure comedy.

A Spirited Debate on Civil Rights

I happened across this Legal Affairs magazine debate on the Patriot Act between Chicago Professor Geoffrey Stone (against) and Judge Richard Posner (for). Both make some good points and fire off some nice jabs. My favorite exchange:

Posner: "My mother was forced out of her job as a public school teacher, and later hauled before the House Un-American Activities Committee, because of her communist sympathies. I consider her political views to have been idiotic, but I am quite sure that she was completely harmless."

Stone: "Let's see, how does it go: A liberal is a conservative who's been mugged; a conservative is a liberal who's been arrested; and an advocate of law-and-economics is a Red diaper baby whose mother's been hauled before HUAC."

George and Harriet Sittin' In a Tree...

This stuff just makes me laugh. I think the confirmation hearings are going to be a lot more fun this time around.

Barack to Kos: Tone it Down

Last Friday Senator Barack Obama wrote a blog post addressing extreme partisanship among special interest groups and party activists (including the Kossacks). It was based on the Roberts confirmations, but obviously has wider applicability. It's a very well written and well thought-out post.

Remember Iraq?

The Washington Post has an excellent editorial summarizing Iraq's constitutional conundrum. It does not appear that the constitution will be the panacea that some folks had thought it would be. It simply boils down to the same old problem that concerned me even before we invaded: how do you come up with democratic government in Iraq that will not dissolve into violent factionalism between the Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis? I wasn't sure it was possible then, and nothing I'm seeing now is convincing me otherwise. It just isn't clear to me that the population in Iraq is homogeneous enough or has a strong enough sense of nationalism to be able to support a democratic federal government.

I Think Mikey Likes It

...back to all-Serenity, all the time, coverage. Not bad for the little movie that could. "The cleverest, crankiest, wittiest, wildest, and most character-driven sci-fi adventure in 25 years; it's the best outer-space trip I've been on since the empire struck back." Nice.

Some Non-Serenity Content

The government went and made Fareed Zakaria upset, so he wrote this fine column.

Not to go overboard with this stuff, but:

Serenity Countdown: 10 Days

I'm counting the hours. You still have over a week to rent, buy, borrow, or steal the Firefly DVD's to fill in the backstory for Serenity.

The Shaving Vanguard

In other news that also leaves me a bit at a loss for words is this story from the razor industry. If ever there was a case of life imitating art... It's uncanny.

Tom Delay: Smokin' the Dope

There's just nothing that can be said for this. I laughed 'til I cried...

My Vote for the Darwin Award

Man Electrocuted While Attempting to Steal Power Line.

I Ain't Sayin' He's a Gold Digger...

So, first Kayne West made waves with his comments on NBC's Hurrican Relief program, concluding, famously, that George Bush doesn't care about black people. And now this. Hilarious. I may not particularly buy it as a political issue, but this stuff is pure gold. God bless 'em.

Pakistanis Tire of Islamism?

A very interesting development from recent elections. I think radical Islamism is too strong in Pakistan to depart quietly, but this is a nice step forward.

A Defense of Intellectualism

I've been absent here for over a month now (just haven't had much inspiration for posting), so I thought I'd copy over something I wrote for a discussion I was having elsewhere. Brief synopsis: the discussion revolved around violence in black culture in America (I'm sure you can guess the basis), and after a couple of people (not me) introduced references to books and studies and such they drew several replies critical of their "book learnin" and their air of intellectual superiority as compared to common sense and life experience. My reply follows:

"For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong."
-H.L. Mencken

I find this very interesting, I was having a discussion last night with a friend on nearly this very topic. Bertrand Russell in his classic book, The History of Western Philosophy, frames the last several hundred years of Western philosophy as a struggle between the Enlightenment empiricists and reactionary Romantics. It's a theme I've recently run across (in nearly identical terms) again reading Edward O. Wilson's Consilience, and very distinct threads of the same issues popped up in the documentary about the neocons, The Power of Nightmares that I posted on over the summer.

The basic idea is this:

The millenia before the Enlightenment (basically from the end of the Roman Empire on) was a vast wasteland for thought and discovery. For various reasons (mostly relating to the dominance of religious philosophy) little of value happened in the realm of philosophy or science. Eventually empiricism happened along (thanks in no small part to John Locke) and the Enlightenment was born.

Philosophers and intellectuals realized they had uncovered a tool of amazing power to learn about the world around them, and science as a meaningful discipline was created. These early Enlightenment philosophers were awash in optimism believing that in no time they would map out all of the knowledge to be had and perfect mankind in our interactions with the world and one another. As time went on what they discovered that while empiricism was able to unlock the secrets of the physical world at a phenomenal rate, human interaction was a different story. Human society is too complex, has too many variables and dimensions and does not yield to the scientific method in the straightforward way that physics or chemistry does. Empirical truths, they felt, do exist that govern the relations of man, but they would be painfully slow in yielding to empirical study (which is not to say that they did not develop important advances in government and economics). In the meantime we would simply have to live with the uncertainty of knowing that the truth is out there, but that we don't necessarily yet know what it is.

The Romantics, beginning mostly with Rousseau (who is the villain of Russell's tale) rejected this uncertainty and opted instead for answers that were simple, neat, and wrong, based mostly in existing cultural or religious values or in the naive sort of philosophy the preceded the Enlightenment. Rousseau rejected empiricism as the means to discover truth, and held science to be incompatible with virtue. Rousseau believed that truth should be found, not "from the principles of a high philosophy", but "in the depths of my heart, written by Nature in ineffaceable characters." He thought that conscience and intuition should be the only guide and "we are thus freed from all this terrifying apparatus of philosophy; we can be men without being learned; dispensed from wasting our life in the study of morals, we have at less cost a more assured guide in this immense labyrinth of human opinions."

Fast forward 250 years and we are still locked in this same battle between empiricism and romanticism. The terms have hardly changed a lick. The Lockian empirical perspective has descended through our Founding Fathers and the ever-increasing reach of scientific discovery, while Rousseau's Romanticism has passed down through Kant, Hegel, the Transcendentals, and the Straussian neoconservatives. We see it expressed in battles between empirical relativism and absolute moralism, between the scientific method and truth by revelation (intelligent design), in the clash between modernity and traditional cultural values (a thread that manifests itself both domestically between red and blue politics and internationally between the modern West and extreme Islam), and in the certainty of neocon policy in face of contrary data. The conflict between Locke and Rousseau is the defining conflict of mankind these last 250 years and looks to be nowhere near resolved.

And here we are arguing over whether common sense intuition is superior to book-learnin.

I don't mean to be rude, but I do think that intuition informed by book-learnin is superior to naked intuition. I believe in the philosophy of the Enlightenment and the importance of empiricism. I choose Locke.

And I would note that empiricism does not dismiss the importance of intuition. Intuition is a critical element of the Scientific Method and guides its every step. But it is not an end point. It is the starting point. It provides the questions and the hypotheses that empirical study then attempts to evaluate. Intuition anchored by evidence, is to my mind, clearly superior to intuition alone.

The Misunderstanding of Depression

I sent the following to CSM's editors regarding Patrick Chisholm's editorial "The Bright Side of the Blues" (8/5):

I must admit I was shocked to read Patrick Chisholm's editorial "The Bright Side of the Blues" (8/5). In a publication as reputable as CSM, it is unusual to find such misinformation and misrepresentation.

Let's begin with the concept of depression. In psychiatry, depression by its very definition is maladaptive and prevents the afflicted person from thinking about anything else other than how terrible their life is. It is not the sadness that you or I feel as a natural response to life events. Our sadness is adaptive indeed and allows us to alter our behavior and think about life, but it is not the depression that psychiatrists talk about.

Now to antidepressants. A good psychiatrist does not indiscriminately treat every depressed patient with a pill and send them on their way. Evey patient is different - some benefit with just behavioral therapy and an antidepressant may be added if therapy alone does not work. Multiple studies have now shown that a combination of therapy and antidepressant treatment is superior to either therapy alone in treating this terrible disease. There is also no proof that antidepressants "result in suicide". If you read the studies carefully, antidepressants may increase reporting of suicidal thoughts, but were not associated with increased suicides in teens. Far from "handicapping the client's ability to navigate and control their social environment", antidepressants may actually enable a person to start working through their negative thoughts in a more constructive way, thus ending their depression. Chisholm also quotes that "the fact that we can feel depressed in the first place means depression must have a purpose". Does this also mean that cancer has a purpose because we can all get cancer? My hunch is that most people would disagree.

It is obvious to me that Chisholm has not suffered from depression, and I wonder whether he has even known someone with clinical depression. If he has, then perhaps he would understand just how debilitating this disease is. This kind of misinformation and faulty thinking is a disservice to the American public and certainly to all of those suffering from depression. I might expect this from Tom Cruz, but certainly not from the Monitor.

The Moral Hazards of War

Uwe Reinhardt has a good WaPo column that takes a bit more mature angle on the same issue Michael Moore confronted when he tried to recruit politicians to send their kids to Iraq.