Barry, I must heartily disagree with your analysis of the responsibilities of our elected representatives. If it was their job to react directly to the opinions of the public, we would hardly have need of them at all. The very reason for their existence is an effort to buffer public policy from the random tides of public opinion. James Madison wrote in The Federalist No. 10: "Hence it is such that democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." It was in an effort to curb the flighty tendencies of the public that a representative government was chosen.
In the view of the founders, as in my view, it would be irresponsible, given the historical record of previous democracies, to expect the public to be steady, just, and consistently well-informed. As I have said on other occasions, it is foolish to attempt to solve systemic problems with calls for personal responsibility. Telling the people that it is their fault for not seeing through government propaganda created to stir their emotions is no more responsible than trying to solve crime by telling criminals they need to stop breaking the law or solve poverty by telling the impoverished they should get of their ass and get a real job. The system needs to recognize that the emotions of the people are inconstant and easily swayed and that their judgment can thus be impaired. And the system needs to be constructed in such a manner as to be able weather these storms of turbulent sentiment. And so it has. Thus have we a congress. A congress, quoting Madison again, "whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations."
It is precisely the duty of our representatives to look at a larger picture than next week's opinion polls. And as I see it that duty is in relation to the importance of the issue. If the issue is whether or not a resolution is passed to commend the Red Cross for their efforts in Afghanistan, I would not see it as a dereliction of duty, per se if a representative casts their vote for trivial political reasons. But if they do the same on the question of going to war, that would clearly be a dereliction of duty. I do not know what other duty there is for a representative than to exercise their wisdom and love of justice, held above "temporary or partial considerations", with regards to the momentous issues of the day.
Sunday, September 14, 2003
Where's the Beef?
In my opinion, Daniel Schorr's piece does not lend any meat to the debate. If anything, such a cursory evaluation of a very thorny subject only adds to confusion on this topic. While I recognize that my posting is subject to the same criticism, there are a few reasons why I believe it is wrongheaded to either fully embrace or flatly denounce the deregulation of complex industries.
First, deregulators fall prey to what is often referred to as the "nirvana fallacy"--comparing the actual world with an unobtainable ideal--when the argument is framed as choosing between government playing an active role or keep its hands to itself. Federal and state governments are so intimately involved at all stages of our economy that deregulation proponents are simply wrong when they claim that the government can now (or could ever) play the role of passive observer. Removing or loosening regulatory oversight does not return the markets to some pre-regulatory world any more than removing a dam would return a river to its natural state--once the government becomes involved, it cannot extricate itself without consequence.
Those favoring regulation are equally guilty of this fallacy when they argue that there are market failures that can only be corrected by government regulation. Economist Harold Demsetz put the problem this way: "Those who adopt the nirvana viewpoint seek to discover discrepancies between the ideal and the real and if discrepancies are found, they deduce the real is inefficient." (Harold Demsetz, "Information and Efficiency: Another Viewpoint," 12 Journal of Law and Economics 1-22 (1969)).
Nobel Laureate Ronald Coase similarly commented, "until we realize we are choosing between social arrangements that are more or less all failures, we are not likely to make much headway." (Ronald H. Coase, "The Regulated Industries: Discussion," 62(4) American Economic Review 777-795 (1964)).
Second, I do not buy into the idea (implicit in many of the arguments favoring regulation) that the government knows better than the marketplace. Legislators or administrative officials are, as a general rule, more clueless than industry players. Of course, industry players are not likely to show self-restraint. Therein lies the crux of the problem as I see it. Those in the best (only?) position to adequately diagnose problems within a particular marketplace are those who have the most to lose by sharing that information.
Third, examples of deregulatory failures don't necessarily lead to the conclusion that all deregulatory efforts are destined to receive the same fate. History is just as riddled with regulatory failures (see Communism).
If we are to explore this issue further, I suggest we focus on one industry example to avoid getting overwhelmed. Media concentration seems to present an ideal study for our purposes, all things considered... To keep things fun, I suggest this article by the Cato Institute, entitled "The Big Media Boogeyman."
First, deregulators fall prey to what is often referred to as the "nirvana fallacy"--comparing the actual world with an unobtainable ideal--when the argument is framed as choosing between government playing an active role or keep its hands to itself. Federal and state governments are so intimately involved at all stages of our economy that deregulation proponents are simply wrong when they claim that the government can now (or could ever) play the role of passive observer. Removing or loosening regulatory oversight does not return the markets to some pre-regulatory world any more than removing a dam would return a river to its natural state--once the government becomes involved, it cannot extricate itself without consequence.
Those favoring regulation are equally guilty of this fallacy when they argue that there are market failures that can only be corrected by government regulation. Economist Harold Demsetz put the problem this way: "Those who adopt the nirvana viewpoint seek to discover discrepancies between the ideal and the real and if discrepancies are found, they deduce the real is inefficient." (Harold Demsetz, "Information and Efficiency: Another Viewpoint," 12 Journal of Law and Economics 1-22 (1969)).
Nobel Laureate Ronald Coase similarly commented, "until we realize we are choosing between social arrangements that are more or less all failures, we are not likely to make much headway." (Ronald H. Coase, "The Regulated Industries: Discussion," 62(4) American Economic Review 777-795 (1964)).
Second, I do not buy into the idea (implicit in many of the arguments favoring regulation) that the government knows better than the marketplace. Legislators or administrative officials are, as a general rule, more clueless than industry players. Of course, industry players are not likely to show self-restraint. Therein lies the crux of the problem as I see it. Those in the best (only?) position to adequately diagnose problems within a particular marketplace are those who have the most to lose by sharing that information.
Third, examples of deregulatory failures don't necessarily lead to the conclusion that all deregulatory efforts are destined to receive the same fate. History is just as riddled with regulatory failures (see Communism).
If we are to explore this issue further, I suggest we focus on one industry example to avoid getting overwhelmed. Media concentration seems to present an ideal study for our purposes, all things considered... To keep things fun, I suggest this article by the Cato Institute, entitled "The Big Media Boogeyman."
Defining Democracy
As an alternative book suggestion, I propose Amartya Sen's seminal book, Development as Freedom. The Atlantic Monthly has a good review here and an interview with Sen here.
In short, Sen (1998 Nobel Prize winner in Economics) discusses how successful development is more than a matter of economics--democracy, culture, human rights, and education are just a few other factors that play a necessary role in lifting a country from the Third World (Sen is best known for his observation that no democracy has ever experienced a famine). Sen adds philosophy and spirituality to the often cold and sterile discussion of economics and development.
This book seems to cover a range of topics and may well serve to seed a variety of great Boys' weekend discussions. Just thought I would offer this book as a possible addition to the Boys' weekend booklist.
In short, Sen (1998 Nobel Prize winner in Economics) discusses how successful development is more than a matter of economics--democracy, culture, human rights, and education are just a few other factors that play a necessary role in lifting a country from the Third World (Sen is best known for his observation that no democracy has ever experienced a famine). Sen adds philosophy and spirituality to the often cold and sterile discussion of economics and development.
This book seems to cover a range of topics and may well serve to seed a variety of great Boys' weekend discussions. Just thought I would offer this book as a possible addition to the Boys' weekend booklist.
The Great Litmus Test
The Washington Post is calling several Democratic presidential candidates to task for siding with Bush on policies they now eschew (see this article). I am less critical than the Washington Post and my fellow bloggers because Congressional representatives must be keenly aware of public tides and they pay dearly for fighting the tide. As I see it, the blame rests more on the public's visceral reaction to contemporary events than on Congress's responsibility to heed its constituents' viewpoints.
I agree with Dean's statement (although made in reference to the Patriot Act and not the war) that members of Congress should not be attacked for what happened during an "atmosphere of enormous emotion." At the same time, I admire those who vote their conscience in spite of potential backlash (e.g., Feingold on the Patriot Act).
I do not mean to suggest that a Congressperson should not account for their votes. Rather, I simply disagree that the Democrats displayed a "dereliction of duty." If we are to hold anyone's feet to the fire for poor decisionmaking, it should be the American people, not its representatives.
I agree with Dean's statement (although made in reference to the Patriot Act and not the war) that members of Congress should not be attacked for what happened during an "atmosphere of enormous emotion." At the same time, I admire those who vote their conscience in spite of potential backlash (e.g., Feingold on the Patriot Act).
I do not mean to suggest that a Congressperson should not account for their votes. Rather, I simply disagree that the Democrats displayed a "dereliction of duty." If we are to hold anyone's feet to the fire for poor decisionmaking, it should be the American people, not its representatives.
Friday, September 12, 2003
Defining Democracy
Would you suggest this as the next Boys Weekend book? We are due up for a new book...
Defining Democracy
Asia Times is running a book review of The Future of Freedom, by Fareed Zakaria. It's a study on the implementation of democracy and how it impacts on freedom and civil liberties. Based on the review it looks fascinating. I think our most bedevilling topic of conversation to date has been how to refine the democratic process. I'm not sure that this book will engage the behavioral aspects that we tend to get into, but it at least hits many peripheral and equally important points, and can help refine the discussion of what exactly it takes to make democracy work. This book will sit high on my unmanageably long "stuff to read" list..
Where's the Beef?
Daniel Schorr has a nice editorial on CSM regarding his experiences with market deregulation. It doesn't go into great depth or have a whole lot of evidence, but it highlights many cases where deregulation failed to live up to its promises. It's a topic we seem to discuss regularly, and perhaps one that would be interesting to study. What are the market conditions that determine whether an industry is best controlled by the public vs the private sector? What methods of deregulation are most likely to result in an improvement in value for consumers?
Thursday, September 11, 2003
Iraqi Opinion Poll
Karl Zinsmeister (of the American Enterprise Institute) wrote an article on the opinion page of the Wall Street Journal yesterday that is worth reading. The article has been posted on the AEI website. He describes the first "scientific" opinion poll of the Iraqi people regarding their current situation and views toward the US. Contrary to many media depictions of Iraq, the poll suggests that Iraqis look favorablly on the American presence (at least in the short term), are secular, and are looking to model their government after either the US or Saudi Arabia (of the choices of countries given). My only concern in this poll is that they did not include Baghdad, which just happens to be the largest population center in Iraq. Why would Baghdad be left out of such a poll? In any event, they deserve credit for trying to get real evidence of Iraqi opinions instead of mere speculation by the press and politicians.
Weapons of... Look! Over there! The Iraqis are free!
In yet another example of the paucity of real evidence for Saddam Hussein posing a threat to the United States, the Wall Street Journal carried a report yesterday about the danger posed by Iraqs unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV's). Both George Bush and Colin Powell (before the UN) made the case that Iraq was capable of using these UAV's to launch biological and chemical attacks against other nations and perhaps even the US. These statements derived from an intelligence report from last October. Attached to this report was a dissent from the Airforce stating they believed it unlikely that Hussein had drones capable of carrying out such attacks. Of course, this dissent was kept secret, even though the Airforce was most capable of making the threat assessment in this area. Now we find that their drones were indeed primitive and incapable of carrying WMD payloads (if indeed Iraq had WMD's).
This is now one of several examples of poor to false evidence regarding an Iraqi threat. I simply can't comprehend why George Bush is not under the same pressure as Tony Blaire. Apparently the American people don't care that they were lied to. Perhaps they will mind paying $87 billion dollars.
This is now one of several examples of poor to false evidence regarding an Iraqi threat. I simply can't comprehend why George Bush is not under the same pressure as Tony Blaire. Apparently the American people don't care that they were lied to. Perhaps they will mind paying $87 billion dollars.
Howard Dean Marches On
There are a couple of interesting bits of news regarding Howard Dean floating around. First, as has been remarked on here, Dean has previously taken a very hawkish, pro-Israel stance on the middle-east. Well apparently he's had a change of heart. He recently got himself into trouble by stating at a campaign rally that he felt the US needed to be even-handed in the conflict, and that an "enormous number" of Iraeli settlements would have to go. Apparently most of the political establishment has gone into shock at the thought that someone could advocate treating the two sides fairly, and so now Dean is already trying to backpedal a bit.
The other news is that he has been meeting with Gen. Wesley Clark, presumably regarding Clark joining him as his vice-president. Were that to happen it would certainly help to cement Dean's lead in the primary race. It's hard to say what impact it would make in the general election without having had much exposure to Clark as a politician.
The other news is that he has been meeting with Gen. Wesley Clark, presumably regarding Clark joining him as his vice-president. Were that to happen it would certainly help to cement Dean's lead in the primary race. It's hard to say what impact it would make in the general election without having had much exposure to Clark as a politician.
The Great Litmus Test
I have to fully agree with the commentary on the failure of Democrats to vote against the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. This was an abdication of responsibility by many members of Congress... an easy way out of a difficult decision. In fact, I would consider it a dereliction of duty. I use this phrase intentionally. The same phrase is a title of the book Dereliction of Duty by H.R. McMaster. He is a major who extensively researched the leadup to the Vietnam War, with particular focus on the workings of the Johnson administration. The portrait of Johnson in that book is one of the most egregious examples of a politician worried more about "re"-election than he was about consequences of his actions on the American people and the world. He kept Vietnam operations secret from Congress and secret from the American people, all the while leading us further and further into the quagmire. He sacrificed policy for politics, and such individuals need to be banished from our government. Of course, it is incumbent on the American people to carry this out. Unfortunately, they are unlikely to do it.
Site Update - Some New Features
As one of the impacts of their purchase by google, blogger has decided to offer more features to their free service. You'll notice we have a real title bar now, a spell checker, and the option to save a post as a draft if you need to quit before you're ready to post.
Also, check out their BlogThis! feature, available from the front page. Save that as one of the shortcuts on your browser, then from any page you're browsing you can hit that shortcut to open up a window to post on our blog with a link in it to the page you're viewing. It's pretty slick. Thanks blogger!
Also, check out their BlogThis! feature, available from the front page. Save that as one of the shortcuts on your browser, then from any page you're browsing you can hit that shortcut to open up a window to post on our blog with a link in it to the page you're viewing. It's pretty slick. Thanks blogger!
The Other Costs of War
This lengthy and well-written Sept 11th story in the New York Times doesn't say anything that hasn't been said before, but its prominence on this day and in that paper took me a bit by surprise. I think it is important to recall, while the human and financial costs of our adventure in Iraq occupy the headlines, that the diplomatic costs were equally severe, and may end up hurting us the most in the long run.
Oxfam Attacks Subsidies
At the WTO meeting in Mexico, Oxfam is leading a coalition of 21 countries against farm subsidies. During the summer the US and EU held their own bilateral talks to decide how to address the issue of subsidies in preparation for this meeting. It doesn't seem like they're in a rush to make major changes, but at least they're coming to understand that this is the critical next step in reaching any further free trade agreements. It creates an awkward political situation for Republicans, who are generally the strongest proponents of free trade, but who also count on support from agricultural states for almost all of their national political power. It will be interesting to see how that unfolds. It's very encouraging to me to see that the developing nations have been able to come together and rally behind this issue. Hopefully it will pave the way for other alliances in dealing with trade issues.
Wednesday, September 10, 2003
The Great Litmus Test
So, in the news, Abbas is out and new attacks on Israel are in. I figured it would happen, but not this fast. I think the administration is still trying to pretend the road map isn't dead, but it would take a miracle to rescue it at this point. Now we've got another Arafat crony running the show there. I really don't see Arafat's crowd settling this thing. His crew is infamously corrupt, and I fear, growing further out of touch with Palestinian popular sentiment every day. Not to mention the fact that the US and Israel hate him with a passion and don't want to deal with him. In fact, I rather suspect he'd have lost power by now except for how strongly the US and Israel fight against him and the sympathy that this engenders in the Palestinian populace. And the way things stand now he has a death grip on the armed wing of the Palestinian Authority. As long as the US and Israel insist on dealing with the PA alone (not involving Hamas) and they maintain a level of pressure that leaves the PA unable to thouroughly reform itself this conflict will go nowhere.
Also in the news, Bush asks for a boatload of money for Iraq. I think this is a very good idea, but agree with various Democratic congress-people (including our friend Russ) that he needs to be made to suffer for it. If he is not willing to admit to any mistakes, if he is not willing to compromise on his tax cuts to fund it, if he is not willing to let Congress have more say on how it is spent, they need to reject this request. There is a column on tompaine.com of moderate value that contains a quote that I think captures the brilliance of Rove's media strategy: "The genius of the new Bush Speak is to fudge all substantive distinctions, on the assumption that the American people won't notice what you are saying as long as you get the photo op right." It's the ultimate statement of style over substance, and it has worked beautifully so far. Congress has an opportunity to force the administration to deal in substance or to see their plans suffer. If indeed they choose to pass up the funding to avoid substantive discussion of the issues, it would truly be a tragedy for Iraq. However, I don't think they can afford to do that, and I don't think they will. Congress, press them hard while you have the chance.
But all of that is not what I want to write about tonight. I wanted to clearly delineate why I will not vote for any Democratic candidate who voted for the resolution allowing George Bush to go to war with Iraq. It's late already, so I'm going to keep this short and to the point. When this vote came up in October of 2002 it had been known for a year that the Bush administration was angling to go to war with Iraq. Rumsfeld had set up a planning committee to prepare for this war within weeks of the 9/11 and had been working to position the US for this war despite a complete lack of evidence tying Saddam to the attack or demonstrating any substantive risk posed by Iraq to the US. When this vote came up the doctrine of preemtive warfare had been circulated to the public and the administration's support for it was known. When this vote came up it was known that our allies were reluctant at best and that the administration planned to use this resolution in an effort to blackmail the UN into agreeing to the war. When this vote came up it was known that only the most sketchy of evidence existed to justify a war on Iraq. When this vote came up it was known that the administration was refusing to disclose any plans for dealing with the aftermath of the conflict and offered only the most vague details on the costs of it.
So why did the Democratic party decide to support the resolution? Because they thought getting it off table would help them in the mid-term elections. Here we are discussion the most important of political issues, whether or not to go to war, and the Democratic party was busy playing politics. Many of those who voted for the resolution expressed strong doubts and concerns about where the adminstration was headed and how they would make use of the resolution. But they voted for it anyway. This is a level of disconnect that I simply cannot fathom. Why do you bother to try to attain a position of power if not to have some say on an issue of this critical importance? I cannot but conclude that the Democratic party and those members of it who supported the resolution are so lost in their pursuit of power that they have forgotten the noble pursuits that led them into politics in the first place. This was an act of the most extreme cynicism and disdain for their appointed duties.
I understand the importance of politics and compromise and playing the game to achieve your goals. But this goes far beyond that. This was a matter of the most vital moral and political importance. That is not a time for playing games. It was unconscienable for the Democrats to view going to war as a matter of political expediency.
And to top it off, it didn't even work. The Democrats lost out on the mid-term elections because people were rallying behind Bush's war. Even having voted for the war they could not rightfully claim they were stronger proponents of it than the Republicans, many of whom voted for the war, not as a matter of politics, but because they actually believed in it. It was a stupid idea, and I believe I said so from the beginning. Signing on to the President's anti-terror agenda cannot help the Democrats. It simply gives these policies their endorsement and strengthens the position on this critical issue of the Republicans, from whom these policies originated in the first place.
And so I cannot in good conscience ever again support any Democratic politician who supported or voted for that resolution, and will not, even should the cost be a Republican victory. This goes beyond a matter of disagreeing on policy, as I disagree with the Republicans. It is a betrayal of everything our political system should be about. I will not stand for it.
Also in the news, Bush asks for a boatload of money for Iraq. I think this is a very good idea, but agree with various Democratic congress-people (including our friend Russ) that he needs to be made to suffer for it. If he is not willing to admit to any mistakes, if he is not willing to compromise on his tax cuts to fund it, if he is not willing to let Congress have more say on how it is spent, they need to reject this request. There is a column on tompaine.com of moderate value that contains a quote that I think captures the brilliance of Rove's media strategy: "The genius of the new Bush Speak is to fudge all substantive distinctions, on the assumption that the American people won't notice what you are saying as long as you get the photo op right." It's the ultimate statement of style over substance, and it has worked beautifully so far. Congress has an opportunity to force the administration to deal in substance or to see their plans suffer. If indeed they choose to pass up the funding to avoid substantive discussion of the issues, it would truly be a tragedy for Iraq. However, I don't think they can afford to do that, and I don't think they will. Congress, press them hard while you have the chance.
But all of that is not what I want to write about tonight. I wanted to clearly delineate why I will not vote for any Democratic candidate who voted for the resolution allowing George Bush to go to war with Iraq. It's late already, so I'm going to keep this short and to the point. When this vote came up in October of 2002 it had been known for a year that the Bush administration was angling to go to war with Iraq. Rumsfeld had set up a planning committee to prepare for this war within weeks of the 9/11 and had been working to position the US for this war despite a complete lack of evidence tying Saddam to the attack or demonstrating any substantive risk posed by Iraq to the US. When this vote came up the doctrine of preemtive warfare had been circulated to the public and the administration's support for it was known. When this vote came up it was known that our allies were reluctant at best and that the administration planned to use this resolution in an effort to blackmail the UN into agreeing to the war. When this vote came up it was known that only the most sketchy of evidence existed to justify a war on Iraq. When this vote came up it was known that the administration was refusing to disclose any plans for dealing with the aftermath of the conflict and offered only the most vague details on the costs of it.
So why did the Democratic party decide to support the resolution? Because they thought getting it off table would help them in the mid-term elections. Here we are discussion the most important of political issues, whether or not to go to war, and the Democratic party was busy playing politics. Many of those who voted for the resolution expressed strong doubts and concerns about where the adminstration was headed and how they would make use of the resolution. But they voted for it anyway. This is a level of disconnect that I simply cannot fathom. Why do you bother to try to attain a position of power if not to have some say on an issue of this critical importance? I cannot but conclude that the Democratic party and those members of it who supported the resolution are so lost in their pursuit of power that they have forgotten the noble pursuits that led them into politics in the first place. This was an act of the most extreme cynicism and disdain for their appointed duties.
I understand the importance of politics and compromise and playing the game to achieve your goals. But this goes far beyond that. This was a matter of the most vital moral and political importance. That is not a time for playing games. It was unconscienable for the Democrats to view going to war as a matter of political expediency.
And to top it off, it didn't even work. The Democrats lost out on the mid-term elections because people were rallying behind Bush's war. Even having voted for the war they could not rightfully claim they were stronger proponents of it than the Republicans, many of whom voted for the war, not as a matter of politics, but because they actually believed in it. It was a stupid idea, and I believe I said so from the beginning. Signing on to the President's anti-terror agenda cannot help the Democrats. It simply gives these policies their endorsement and strengthens the position on this critical issue of the Republicans, from whom these policies originated in the first place.
And so I cannot in good conscience ever again support any Democratic politician who supported or voted for that resolution, and will not, even should the cost be a Republican victory. This goes beyond a matter of disagreeing on policy, as I disagree with the Republicans. It is a betrayal of everything our political system should be about. I will not stand for it.
Friday, September 05, 2003
Article: Busy News Day
Lots of interesting stuff today. This whole episode of going back to the UN for military and financial support is really fueling my Bush administration split conspiracy theory. According to stories floating around, Powell finally decided to make a move, and according to a story in the Milwaukee Journal last week he's got Karl Rove on his side, and this story shows the Joint Chiefs and Condi Rice lining up with him as well. That's a coalition that could take on the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz axis head-to-head. Interesting stuff... Of course Wolfowitz says (paraphrasing, I heard this on the radio) this is not a case of the US changing our position on UN involvement, it's that the UN has decided thaFt backing up the US is the right thing to do. Huh? It was clearly the US who initiated this proposal, and the UN still ain't buyin unless the US makes substantive concessions to the UN.
Elsewhere, Abbas continues to play his one-note symphony ("do what I tell you or I'll take my ball and go home") for the Palestinian Authority. There is incentive enough for both sides to give it a shot, but I don't think Arafat intends to yield any real power, and Abbas has little room to negotiate without losing his US and Israeli endorsement (and with it his entire reason for holding office). They'll try to work things out for a while, it will collapse, and the roadmap will be officially over.
And finally, CSM mentions a new reality TV show coming out, as if we haven't had enough of them. But wait, this one, called "K-Street" is about political lobbyists. It's a bizarre, but intriguing idea, particularly considering it is produced by the brilliant writer/producer/director Steven Soderbergh. The bad news? It's an HBO exclusive.
Lots of interesting stuff today. This whole episode of going back to the UN for military and financial support is really fueling my Bush administration split conspiracy theory. According to stories floating around, Powell finally decided to make a move, and according to a story in the Milwaukee Journal last week he's got Karl Rove on his side, and this story shows the Joint Chiefs and Condi Rice lining up with him as well. That's a coalition that could take on the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz axis head-to-head. Interesting stuff... Of course Wolfowitz says (paraphrasing, I heard this on the radio) this is not a case of the US changing our position on UN involvement, it's that the UN has decided thaFt backing up the US is the right thing to do. Huh? It was clearly the US who initiated this proposal, and the UN still ain't buyin unless the US makes substantive concessions to the UN.
Elsewhere, Abbas continues to play his one-note symphony ("do what I tell you or I'll take my ball and go home") for the Palestinian Authority. There is incentive enough for both sides to give it a shot, but I don't think Arafat intends to yield any real power, and Abbas has little room to negotiate without losing his US and Israeli endorsement (and with it his entire reason for holding office). They'll try to work things out for a while, it will collapse, and the roadmap will be officially over.
And finally, CSM mentions a new reality TV show coming out, as if we haven't had enough of them. But wait, this one, called "K-Street" is about political lobbyists. It's a bizarre, but intriguing idea, particularly considering it is produced by the brilliant writer/producer/director Steven Soderbergh. The bad news? It's an HBO exclusive.
Background: The Neoconservatives
The Christian Science Monitor has an extremely nice summary of the history, ideals, and key players of the neocon movement. I found it very informative as I see and hear this term thrown around a lot but with little explanation of what it means. I was fascinated to learn that the neocon movement started with a bunch of Jewish liberals in the 60's and 70's who were born again into the right.
The Christian Science Monitor has an extremely nice summary of the history, ideals, and key players of the neocon movement. I found it very informative as I see and hear this term thrown around a lot but with little explanation of what it means. I was fascinated to learn that the neocon movement started with a bunch of Jewish liberals in the 60's and 70's who were born again into the right.
Article: Sizing up Bush for 2004
The Economist has this article in its most recent edition evaluating some of the successes and failures of the Bush adminsistration, which makes reelection anything but a foregone conclusion. The article does note that Bush certainly has one thing going for him (a lot of one thing, actually): money.
The Economist has this article in its most recent edition evaluating some of the successes and failures of the Bush adminsistration, which makes reelection anything but a foregone conclusion. The article does note that Bush certainly has one thing going for him (a lot of one thing, actually): money.
Thursday, September 04, 2003
On the Horizon: Even Safer Tobacco?
Star Scientific appears to be a company committed to producing low-carcinogenic tobacco products. They were recently in the news because the FDA has refused to regulate their upcoming product Avira tobacco lozenge. The company claims that this lozenge, as well as their moist and dry snuff, will have nitrosamine 'levels that are extremely low, even when measured in “parts per billion”'. My understanding is that Snus has levels around 3 parts per million. Perhaps we will end up having even safer alternatives to Snus if the price is right. I also commend them for trying to make low carcinogen cigarettes. These types of products have been too long in coming and are likely to save our health care system significant amounts of money if they come into general use.
Star Scientific appears to be a company committed to producing low-carcinogenic tobacco products. They were recently in the news because the FDA has refused to regulate their upcoming product Avira tobacco lozenge. The company claims that this lozenge, as well as their moist and dry snuff, will have nitrosamine 'levels that are extremely low, even when measured in “parts per billion”'. My understanding is that Snus has levels around 3 parts per million. Perhaps we will end up having even safer alternatives to Snus if the price is right. I also commend them for trying to make low carcinogen cigarettes. These types of products have been too long in coming and are likely to save our health care system significant amounts of money if they come into general use.
Article: The Educated Terrorists
In a very interesting article in CSM (can you tell we like this paper?), it appears that terrorists and suicide bombers may not be the poor, uneducated wretches that many make them out to be. According to the article, only 13% of Palestinian suicide bombers came from poor families, whereas some 32% of the Palestinian population in a similar age group were considered poor. Furthermore, virtually all of these bombers had at least finished primary school. This reminds me of some of our previous discussions regarding the origins of revolt (see Discussion: The Revolutionary Threshold beginning 5-30-03). I believe we came to the conclusion that the poor and uneducated were unlikely to revolt against the status quo. On the other hand, the middle class or elites would have the time, money, and knowledge to be the key players in leading a revolt to change the economic and social circumstances. Perhaps this is reflected in the background of the suicide bombers. The more they know, the more they detest the occupation of Palestine. I can't say I blame them for their feelings, although I find it impossible to condone their actions against civilians (no more than I would condone Israel's extrajudicial executions of both suspected militants and innocent bystanders).
In a very interesting article in CSM (can you tell we like this paper?), it appears that terrorists and suicide bombers may not be the poor, uneducated wretches that many make them out to be. According to the article, only 13% of Palestinian suicide bombers came from poor families, whereas some 32% of the Palestinian population in a similar age group were considered poor. Furthermore, virtually all of these bombers had at least finished primary school. This reminds me of some of our previous discussions regarding the origins of revolt (see Discussion: The Revolutionary Threshold beginning 5-30-03). I believe we came to the conclusion that the poor and uneducated were unlikely to revolt against the status quo. On the other hand, the middle class or elites would have the time, money, and knowledge to be the key players in leading a revolt to change the economic and social circumstances. Perhaps this is reflected in the background of the suicide bombers. The more they know, the more they detest the occupation of Palestine. I can't say I blame them for their feelings, although I find it impossible to condone their actions against civilians (no more than I would condone Israel's extrajudicial executions of both suspected militants and innocent bystanders).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
