Nature has this article about a technique called "electrowetting" that makes video displays with the characteristics of paper much more likely. The New Scientist has this article on the same topic.
I have mentioned e-ink and e-paper before, and I remain firmly convinced this will advance computer use leaps and bounds. Imagine combining the portability of nanotech with wireless with e-paper. The future will surely be fun, if we don't kill ourselves in the meantime.
Wednesday, September 24, 2003
Prepared Remarks != Debate
I can hardly find adequate words to express my disgust at the fact that the major debate for the California recall election (ie. the only one they could get Arnold to show up for) has released the questions ahead of time. As per my comments previously on this site and in discussion with Barry over the weekend, it is a great failing of the way we conduct our campaigns that major candidates can make it through to election day without speaking more than a few unprepared and unscripted lines. The whole entire point of debates is to get candidates off their scripts and speaking candidly. If you're not going to do that, don't bother holding the debate at all (and that goes for you too, Jim Lehrer).
Commercial solicitation -- Win one, lose one
The New York Times had this article yesterday about California's new anti-spam law (the text of the bill, which is SB 186, may be found here). It affords a private right of action and $1000 recovery per unsolicited commercial email, as well as government enforcement. This is going to make a huge difference in email because it is particularly difficult for a spammer to know who is or is not a California resident by an email address. Score one for the good guys.
Today, according to this Reuters article, a district court in the Western District of Oklahoma found that the FTC exceeded its delegated authority by setting up the national do not call registry. The FTC claims it had authority under the 1991 Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act to issue its order (rather long--164 pages) creating the registry.
As the opinion describes, the FCC had an opportunity (and in the court's view, has the authority--not the FTC) to create a national do not call registry but decided not to because it claimed it was not economical and efficient for those who "by and large would like to maintain their ability to choose among those telemarketers from whom they do and do not want to hear." In short, the FCC failed to do its job, and the court found that the FTC could not do the job instead.
This is just another issue that raises suspicion that the FCC has not remained sufficiently independent from corporate interests to avoid agency capture. I am still looking for a good rebuttal on this point, but two sites are worth visiting that advocate this position--Common Cause's page on the FCC and MediaReform.Network (the group putting on a conference in Madison where all the cool people will be).
Today, according to this Reuters article, a district court in the Western District of Oklahoma found that the FTC exceeded its delegated authority by setting up the national do not call registry. The FTC claims it had authority under the 1991 Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act to issue its order (rather long--164 pages) creating the registry.
As the opinion describes, the FCC had an opportunity (and in the court's view, has the authority--not the FTC) to create a national do not call registry but decided not to because it claimed it was not economical and efficient for those who "by and large would like to maintain their ability to choose among those telemarketers from whom they do and do not want to hear." In short, the FCC failed to do its job, and the court found that the FTC could not do the job instead.
This is just another issue that raises suspicion that the FCC has not remained sufficiently independent from corporate interests to avoid agency capture. I am still looking for a good rebuttal on this point, but two sites are worth visiting that advocate this position--Common Cause's page on the FCC and MediaReform.Network (the group putting on a conference in Madison where all the cool people will be).
Tuesday, September 23, 2003
Another culinary advancement
First, there was sliced bread. Then the cheesewurst. Now, the cheeseburger fry.
As for nutritional information, each fry has ONLY 75 calories and 4 grams of fat. McDonald's claims in its nutritional information chart that its small serving of fries have a total of 210 calories and 10 grams of fat, while a cheeseburger has 330 calories and 14 grams of fat.
I'm holding out for the deep-fried ostrich sticks.
As for nutritional information, each fry has ONLY 75 calories and 4 grams of fat. McDonald's claims in its nutritional information chart that its small serving of fries have a total of 210 calories and 10 grams of fat, while a cheeseburger has 330 calories and 14 grams of fat.
I'm holding out for the deep-fried ostrich sticks.
Oh, yeah? Make Me!
Preliminary reaction from Iran on the IAEA resolution: Iran plans to scale back their current level of cooperation with the IAEA. There is some possibility they'll drop the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty entirely. No particular surprises here.
Friday, September 19, 2003
Right Makes Might
I was poking around Wesley Clark's webpage (hey, it's been a slow afternoon), and while there isn't much material regarding his policy positions yet there are some old articles he has written. One of them, written a year ago, is an in-depth discussion of his experiences in Kosovo and how they relate to the war on terror. It is a brilliantly written column, and piques my interest in Clark. It certainly puts to shame his rather, ahem, uninspiring announcement speech.
Iran On the Brink
Well, we're all over CSM's stories today. As you know I've been taken with quite a fascination of Iran for some time. They've been in the news quite a bit recently as the Bush administration has successfully pushed through an IAEA resolution calling for Iran to give a full disclosure of their nuclear program by Oct. 31. Or else. This is a huge turning point for Iran. CSM ran a very nice story summarizing the situation today. My gut feeling is that they'll tell the IAEA to take a hike. I think they have the feeling, now more than ever, that they need to have a nuclear deterrent. They know that if George W. Bush gets reelected as President, there is a very real chance that the US will invade their country. Further, with Iraq gone, I think they see an opportunity to become the key strategic power in the Middle-East, and to play a leadership role amongst the Muslim nations.
They also know that there will never be a better time to move on their weapons program than the present. The US is completely tied down with Iraq. The budget and the military have been pushed to the limit. And to make things even more opportune, North Korea is playing the same game. If both nations flout the nuclear non-proliferation treaty certainly the US cannot afford to go to war with them both. Basically, if Iran can have a functional weapon ready within the next year or two, they will never have a better opportunity than they do now.
I do not believe that international censure or sanctions will move them too much either. They have spent the better part of the last 25 years being despised by the West, and their recent efforts to make friends have largely been rebuffed due to this terrorism flap. The biggest remaining threat is Israel. There is no love lost between the two nations, and frankly I think Iran enjoys antagonizing Israel with their weapons program. They will need to be careful to ensure that their nuclear program is not so easily destroyed as Iraq's twenty years ago.
The underlying problem here is that any nations not closely aligned with the US are starting to feel very insecure. This is a stated goal of the administration's aggressive national security plan. To let the Evildoers know that nobody is safe. But the Evildoers know better than that. Anyone can be safe if they have enough nuclear weapons. The Evildoers also know that the US has a limited capacity to intervene in their weapons programs. As such nuclear proliferation becomes an extremely attractive option to any nation concerned about being labeled an Evildoer. Perhaps the administration did not really think through what it would mean for the world to become a more aggressive and belligerent place.
They also know that there will never be a better time to move on their weapons program than the present. The US is completely tied down with Iraq. The budget and the military have been pushed to the limit. And to make things even more opportune, North Korea is playing the same game. If both nations flout the nuclear non-proliferation treaty certainly the US cannot afford to go to war with them both. Basically, if Iran can have a functional weapon ready within the next year or two, they will never have a better opportunity than they do now.
I do not believe that international censure or sanctions will move them too much either. They have spent the better part of the last 25 years being despised by the West, and their recent efforts to make friends have largely been rebuffed due to this terrorism flap. The biggest remaining threat is Israel. There is no love lost between the two nations, and frankly I think Iran enjoys antagonizing Israel with their weapons program. They will need to be careful to ensure that their nuclear program is not so easily destroyed as Iraq's twenty years ago.
The underlying problem here is that any nations not closely aligned with the US are starting to feel very insecure. This is a stated goal of the administration's aggressive national security plan. To let the Evildoers know that nobody is safe. But the Evildoers know better than that. Anyone can be safe if they have enough nuclear weapons. The Evildoers also know that the US has a limited capacity to intervene in their weapons programs. As such nuclear proliferation becomes an extremely attractive option to any nation concerned about being labeled an Evildoer. Perhaps the administration did not really think through what it would mean for the world to become a more aggressive and belligerent place.
Al Qaeda Is Not An Island
The Christian Science Monitor frequently has wonderful guest editorials, but I've never been very sold on their "The Monitor's View" editorials. They're typically too short by half, and avoid taking any stand on the issue, rather being content to simply point out that the issue exists. After reading this rather atypical Monitor editorial, I can see why. They present a rather simplistic view on how the war with Iraq is not helping Al Qaeda, and that it may, in fact, curtail terror as the increase of democracy sweeps through the middle east (hope truly does spring eternal). This seems to ignore a few basic facts.
Fact: no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda was ever demonstrated. The best the Bush administration could come up with was that a known Al Qaeda agent was hiding out in Baghdad. Of course, we also know that at various times Al Qaeda agents hung out in Florida, Boston, and up-state New York, and this was never assumed to mean that the local governments there were complicit (although you never know with Jeb Bush).
Fact: the US has limited military and financial capacities. Resources spent destroying and then rebuilding Iraq are not being spent to pursue Al Qaeda and their allies. And this is no small potatoes. We're looking at hundreds of thousands of troops tied down for years, and hundreds of billions of dollars spent.
Fact: the US has limited diplomatic capital. The goodwill that was squandered in pursuit of the war with Iraq will without a doubt hinder the US's international operations (and it's ability to pursue Al Qaeda) for years to come.
Fact: Al Qaeda is not an island. They are the focal point of a broad array of Muslim and arab militant organizations spanning from East Africa through the South-west Pacific. Many of these groups have little in common. One unifying point they can all agree on: they are enraged by Western colonialism, empirialism, interference with, and domination of Muslim states. All of these organizations need funding. All of these organizations need recruits. All of these organizations need local sympathy to shelter and abet their operations. And after the outrage generated by the attack on Iraq, all of these organizations will have an easier time procuring all of those things.
In light of all that, one would have to be delusional to suggest that the war on Iraq did not in any part interfere with our pursuit of the war on terror.
Fact: no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda was ever demonstrated. The best the Bush administration could come up with was that a known Al Qaeda agent was hiding out in Baghdad. Of course, we also know that at various times Al Qaeda agents hung out in Florida, Boston, and up-state New York, and this was never assumed to mean that the local governments there were complicit (although you never know with Jeb Bush).
Fact: the US has limited military and financial capacities. Resources spent destroying and then rebuilding Iraq are not being spent to pursue Al Qaeda and their allies. And this is no small potatoes. We're looking at hundreds of thousands of troops tied down for years, and hundreds of billions of dollars spent.
Fact: the US has limited diplomatic capital. The goodwill that was squandered in pursuit of the war with Iraq will without a doubt hinder the US's international operations (and it's ability to pursue Al Qaeda) for years to come.
Fact: Al Qaeda is not an island. They are the focal point of a broad array of Muslim and arab militant organizations spanning from East Africa through the South-west Pacific. Many of these groups have little in common. One unifying point they can all agree on: they are enraged by Western colonialism, empirialism, interference with, and domination of Muslim states. All of these organizations need funding. All of these organizations need recruits. All of these organizations need local sympathy to shelter and abet their operations. And after the outrage generated by the attack on Iraq, all of these organizations will have an easier time procuring all of those things.
In light of all that, one would have to be delusional to suggest that the war on Iraq did not in any part interfere with our pursuit of the war on terror.
The Blasphemy of Evenhandedness
CSM has an editorial today pointing out that Americans need to debate (deliberate) on how the U.S. might best achieve peace petween Israel and Palestine. I have been thinking about this for some time now. It amazes me that there is such blind support for Israel in this country. Howard Dean was recently lambasted when calling for an "evenhanded" approach by the U.S. towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Why is this so controversial? If the United States government really wanted to foster peace between Israel and Palestine, I believe it could rather easily do so by putting significant pressure on BOTH peoples. This is simply a question of how committed the United States is to achieving peace there, and it appears it does not have the priority that has been given Iraq.
The United States could easily put down terrorist organizations in Palestine. It could easily arrange for the removal of Yasser Arafat. It could easily put substantial pressure on Israel to remove illegal settlements and adhere to UN Security Council resolutions calling for an end to the occupation of Palestine by Israeli forces. Israel receives something like one third of all U.S. foreign aid, a staggering amount in the billions of dollars. It is clear that we have the financial and political leverage to persuade the Israeli government to take such steps. Finally, the United States could easily lead or create a peacekeeping force in Palestine, something that would be absolutely necessary until the Palestinians can rebuild infrastructure and hold legitimate elections.
If the United States can topple two governments within a year, it most certainly can create stability in Palestine. Critics will claim that peace can not be imposed on these two peoples. Yet history has shown us that they are incapable of establishing peace on their own, and they are unlikely to do so until there is a buffering force between them.
The United States could easily put down terrorist organizations in Palestine. It could easily arrange for the removal of Yasser Arafat. It could easily put substantial pressure on Israel to remove illegal settlements and adhere to UN Security Council resolutions calling for an end to the occupation of Palestine by Israeli forces. Israel receives something like one third of all U.S. foreign aid, a staggering amount in the billions of dollars. It is clear that we have the financial and political leverage to persuade the Israeli government to take such steps. Finally, the United States could easily lead or create a peacekeeping force in Palestine, something that would be absolutely necessary until the Palestinians can rebuild infrastructure and hold legitimate elections.
If the United States can topple two governments within a year, it most certainly can create stability in Palestine. Critics will claim that peace can not be imposed on these two peoples. Yet history has shown us that they are incapable of establishing peace on their own, and they are unlikely to do so until there is a buffering force between them.
Thursday, September 18, 2003
Monkeys show sense of fairness and justice
BBC reports here that researchers demonstrated that when monkeys observed their colleagues getting greater rewards for the same tasks, they refused to perform future tasks or sometimes refused future rewards in protest. The abstract of the study can be found here, in the most recent edition of Nature.
This study may require a reordering of our species. It appears that monkeys have evolved characteristics more advanced than Bush.
This study may require a reordering of our species. It appears that monkeys have evolved characteristics more advanced than Bush.
Captain Obvious To the Rescue!
Today, it seems, George Bush has joined Cheney and Condi Rice in admitting that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. However, he says that we did come close to "the geographic base of the terrorists who've had us under assault now for many years." Nice to know that we at least hit the right hemisphere. Well done indeed.
Wednesday, September 17, 2003
Re: The Big Media Boogyman
It's my 3rd post today, but I'm stoked about our upcoming Boys' Weekend and can't hold back =). (BTW, what are we cooking?)
I thought I'd offer a response to the article Barry pointed out on deregulation: The Big Media Boogyman. Thierer and Crews are attempting to show that there is a much more diverse marketplace today than 30 years ago, prior to deregulation. In doing so they state that today there are 500 TV channels, compared 5-6 in 1973. Today there are 13,000 radio stations compared to 7000 in 1970. They neglect to mention that the majority of these 500 TV channels and 13,000 radio stations, not to mention most of the record companies, movie studios, newspapers, and magazines in the country are owned by a mere 8 or 10 companies (and do click on the "Research Behind the Chart" link). Of course there are more options, the technology and the market have expanded tremendously since 1970. But all of those options are now under the control of a small number of people, people who now effectively can dominate the discourse of our deliberative democracy. Local outlets have by and large been eliminated.
They also offer access to information via the internet as an example of the explosion of new options for consumers. This is hardly a credit to the deregulated market. The internet would have arrived regardless of the regulations on TV and radio.
They claim that the regulations do not keep up with the evolving marketplace. Why, they ask, "should media companies be forced to play by a distinct set of random ownership rules that we impose on no other industry"? Perhaps they haven't contemplated the role that open discussion serves in our form of government? Or that the airwaves are a public resource, to be doled out in a manner most benefiting the public? To understand the danger of allowing unfettered private control of the media, one need only observe the lunatic who leveraged his media empire to supreme power in Italy (and believe me, I could come up with another 20 links just like these on request, the guy's a fruitcake). Why should we subject the media to special rules? Because the very existence of government depends on it.
The simplest argument I can make on this case is to simply look at Clear Channel and how they do business. What they do is buy out independent radio stations, clear out all of their staff and run them from regional studios, where they can broadcast the same content to numerous stations in different markets. This is very profitable for them. Even if some fraction of their listeners decide that the new format is crap and tune out, the cost savings is so great that it still generates significant profits. Particularly when they own all, or nearly all of the stations in town, which is not uncommon. End result is that there are fewer voices, few sources of content. When they make political decisions, which they do, regularly, there is now one corporate headquarters making the decision for thousands of stations, rather than each station deciding for themselves. With each station consumed by the mega-media conglomerates the deliberative discourse in our country grows smaller, tighter, less diverse.
I suppose it is worth noting that Thierer and Crews co-authored a book called "What's Yours Is Mine: Open Access and the Rise of Infrastructure Socialism". I don't know if I even need to describe the book, with a title like that. Basically they're arguing that allowing the government to regulate such things as requiring open access to telecommunications infrastructure (phone lines, cable networks) or disclosure of file formats or network protocols equates to socialism and is therefore Eeevil. This is a wee bit over the top and goes against most of the areas of agreement we've found with respect to deregulation, ie that each market should be scrutinized in depth to find which elements of that business should be exposed to the open market (and which parts should not) in order to promote competition that will truly benefit consumers.
I thought I'd offer a response to the article Barry pointed out on deregulation: The Big Media Boogyman. Thierer and Crews are attempting to show that there is a much more diverse marketplace today than 30 years ago, prior to deregulation. In doing so they state that today there are 500 TV channels, compared 5-6 in 1973. Today there are 13,000 radio stations compared to 7000 in 1970. They neglect to mention that the majority of these 500 TV channels and 13,000 radio stations, not to mention most of the record companies, movie studios, newspapers, and magazines in the country are owned by a mere 8 or 10 companies (and do click on the "Research Behind the Chart" link). Of course there are more options, the technology and the market have expanded tremendously since 1970. But all of those options are now under the control of a small number of people, people who now effectively can dominate the discourse of our deliberative democracy. Local outlets have by and large been eliminated.
They also offer access to information via the internet as an example of the explosion of new options for consumers. This is hardly a credit to the deregulated market. The internet would have arrived regardless of the regulations on TV and radio.
They claim that the regulations do not keep up with the evolving marketplace. Why, they ask, "should media companies be forced to play by a distinct set of random ownership rules that we impose on no other industry"? Perhaps they haven't contemplated the role that open discussion serves in our form of government? Or that the airwaves are a public resource, to be doled out in a manner most benefiting the public? To understand the danger of allowing unfettered private control of the media, one need only observe the lunatic who leveraged his media empire to supreme power in Italy (and believe me, I could come up with another 20 links just like these on request, the guy's a fruitcake). Why should we subject the media to special rules? Because the very existence of government depends on it.
The simplest argument I can make on this case is to simply look at Clear Channel and how they do business. What they do is buy out independent radio stations, clear out all of their staff and run them from regional studios, where they can broadcast the same content to numerous stations in different markets. This is very profitable for them. Even if some fraction of their listeners decide that the new format is crap and tune out, the cost savings is so great that it still generates significant profits. Particularly when they own all, or nearly all of the stations in town, which is not uncommon. End result is that there are fewer voices, few sources of content. When they make political decisions, which they do, regularly, there is now one corporate headquarters making the decision for thousands of stations, rather than each station deciding for themselves. With each station consumed by the mega-media conglomerates the deliberative discourse in our country grows smaller, tighter, less diverse.
I suppose it is worth noting that Thierer and Crews co-authored a book called "What's Yours Is Mine: Open Access and the Rise of Infrastructure Socialism". I don't know if I even need to describe the book, with a title like that. Basically they're arguing that allowing the government to regulate such things as requiring open access to telecommunications infrastructure (phone lines, cable networks) or disclosure of file formats or network protocols equates to socialism and is therefore Eeevil. This is a wee bit over the top and goes against most of the areas of agreement we've found with respect to deregulation, ie that each market should be scrutinized in depth to find which elements of that business should be exposed to the open market (and which parts should not) in order to promote competition that will truly benefit consumers.
Re: The Great Litmus Test
Barry, I fear we're doing a pretty dance around the points we're trying to hit. Your criticism that our representatives are human and fallible I will accept. But that this necessarily delivers responsibility from them onto the voters I won't. Voters certainly have a responsibility, but elected representatives have one as well. I believe that our office-holders do have a duty and responsibility to behave in certain ways. I believe that this is a critical element to having a functional republic. When I say, as I have regularly during our discussions, that there needs to be a degree of social and cultural buy-in for a democracy (republic) to work, this is a part of what I'm referring to. Elected office-holders ought to hold some degree of respect for the institutions they serve, and ought to behave in such a manner as to reflect that. If this cultural buy-in doesn't exist, I don't believe that there is a constitution in existence (or in theory for that matter) which will hold such a government together. A constitution is simply a piece of paper. It is no better than the people who carry out its designs.
In a technical, scriptural sense, of course, our Congress-people have no official duty to do anything, as far as I know. If they want to stay at home, drink a beer and watch Jerry Springer while Congress is in session, they have every legal right to do that. However, I think there is some implied contract that when you vote for a politician they will act in the manner that they represent themselves in their campaign, that they will uphold the values they promote in their campaign, and that they will make a good-faith effort to implement the plans they present in their campaign. Because, as a voter, that's all you have. Once you cast that vote you don't have any more power over what that person does.
Additionally I hold full-time elected officials to a higher standard of decision-making than common street folk. This is not because we have "found angels in the forms of kings" to govern us. It is due to the fact that they have the opportunity, as Ryan mentioned, and (based on the above) the duty to inform themselves of the issues in greater depth than most. And because of this they should also be less vulnerable to the behavioral tricks that propaganda plays on those who are less informed. It is not that these people are necessarily superior, but that their position gives them both opportunity and motivation to make sounder, better-informed decisions, and in this manner to stand a level above the tides of sentiment.
With regards to Iraq, the Democratic Congress-people (and I'm mostly referring to the party leadership, as many of the rank-and-file, particularly in the House, voted against the resolution) acted, not in a manner consistent with core values or campaign promises, but based on their observations of polls like this. They saw that liberals were split on the issue while moderates and conservatives supported war. They saw that the public did not trust them nearly as much as they trusted the Republicans on the issues of Iraq and Terrorism.
The core party values are those of multilateralism, benevolence, and cooperation with international rules and bodies. The war went against these things and introduced Bush's concept pre-emptive aggression and the Neo-con Pax-Americana security strategy. The liberal public has never supported these ideas and rejected this war before and after it occurred, and were evenly split on the issue only during periods of intense pro-war propaganda (primarily Oct '02 and Mar-Apr '03).
The Democratic leadership who jumped on board with this resolution rejected their core values in an effort to play the polls for the fall elections. They figured that since liberals were split, they would take the same hit from them either way, so why not go the direction that will be more appealing to moderates and conservatives and that might make them more convincing on the issues of Iraq and terrorism. That was the calculation they made. Our core values versus a possible few percentage points in the mid-term election.
Did they actually believe in what they were doing? No. After voting for a resolution to give President Bush the unlimited authority to wage a pre-emptive war, Dick Gephardt said: "[this is] not an endorsement or acceptance of President Bush's new policy of pre-emption". Said Hillary Clinton after voting for a resolution that made possible a unilateral pre-emptive war of unparalleled arrogance: "My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose, all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world." Other Democrats made similar statements, directly contradicting the action they had just taken. And that was at the time the resolution was passed. Now that war fever has declined amongst liberals, the Democrats who voted for this resolution are running away from it just as fast as they can run. They don't believe in it now, and they didn't then. They were just playing the polls.
In my view this act of betraying core values on a critical issue for temporary political gain is a betrayal of the implied contract between voter and candidate. That is why I state that my opposition on this issue is of a different quality than that of disagreeing over policy (as I do with Dean on various topics). If I cannot trust a candidate to abide by the things they claim to represent, then it matters not whether those claims are in line with my views. In fact, it is a more offensive position; I prefer the candidate that disagrees with me on policy to the one who seeks to deceive (or more accurately doesn't have the backbone to stand by what they believe).
Sen. Jim Jeffords (I), voted against the resolution, as did one Republican senator (I don't recall the name). If they had wanted to, the 50 Democrats in the Senate could have killed the bill without even resorting to a filibuster. They had the power in their hands to prevent a war that they didn't believe in and they did not do it. I find it hard to hold Democratic voters responsible for that.. They were stabbed in the back by their own representatives. I can only hope that they will do the right thing now and dump all these ass-clowns out on the street.
ps. long post... whew.. Notice the lack of banner ads at the top of our page now. Thank our friends at blogger.com. I was going to sign us up for the ad-free version ($15/yr) but their billing system is broken, and when I complained they said they were revamping their system, but would give us the ad-free version as a courtesy. :) Cool.
In a technical, scriptural sense, of course, our Congress-people have no official duty to do anything, as far as I know. If they want to stay at home, drink a beer and watch Jerry Springer while Congress is in session, they have every legal right to do that. However, I think there is some implied contract that when you vote for a politician they will act in the manner that they represent themselves in their campaign, that they will uphold the values they promote in their campaign, and that they will make a good-faith effort to implement the plans they present in their campaign. Because, as a voter, that's all you have. Once you cast that vote you don't have any more power over what that person does.
Additionally I hold full-time elected officials to a higher standard of decision-making than common street folk. This is not because we have "found angels in the forms of kings" to govern us. It is due to the fact that they have the opportunity, as Ryan mentioned, and (based on the above) the duty to inform themselves of the issues in greater depth than most. And because of this they should also be less vulnerable to the behavioral tricks that propaganda plays on those who are less informed. It is not that these people are necessarily superior, but that their position gives them both opportunity and motivation to make sounder, better-informed decisions, and in this manner to stand a level above the tides of sentiment.
With regards to Iraq, the Democratic Congress-people (and I'm mostly referring to the party leadership, as many of the rank-and-file, particularly in the House, voted against the resolution) acted, not in a manner consistent with core values or campaign promises, but based on their observations of polls like this. They saw that liberals were split on the issue while moderates and conservatives supported war. They saw that the public did not trust them nearly as much as they trusted the Republicans on the issues of Iraq and Terrorism.
The core party values are those of multilateralism, benevolence, and cooperation with international rules and bodies. The war went against these things and introduced Bush's concept pre-emptive aggression and the Neo-con Pax-Americana security strategy. The liberal public has never supported these ideas and rejected this war before and after it occurred, and were evenly split on the issue only during periods of intense pro-war propaganda (primarily Oct '02 and Mar-Apr '03).
The Democratic leadership who jumped on board with this resolution rejected their core values in an effort to play the polls for the fall elections. They figured that since liberals were split, they would take the same hit from them either way, so why not go the direction that will be more appealing to moderates and conservatives and that might make them more convincing on the issues of Iraq and terrorism. That was the calculation they made. Our core values versus a possible few percentage points in the mid-term election.
Did they actually believe in what they were doing? No. After voting for a resolution to give President Bush the unlimited authority to wage a pre-emptive war, Dick Gephardt said: "[this is] not an endorsement or acceptance of President Bush's new policy of pre-emption". Said Hillary Clinton after voting for a resolution that made possible a unilateral pre-emptive war of unparalleled arrogance: "My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose, all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world." Other Democrats made similar statements, directly contradicting the action they had just taken. And that was at the time the resolution was passed. Now that war fever has declined amongst liberals, the Democrats who voted for this resolution are running away from it just as fast as they can run. They don't believe in it now, and they didn't then. They were just playing the polls.
In my view this act of betraying core values on a critical issue for temporary political gain is a betrayal of the implied contract between voter and candidate. That is why I state that my opposition on this issue is of a different quality than that of disagreeing over policy (as I do with Dean on various topics). If I cannot trust a candidate to abide by the things they claim to represent, then it matters not whether those claims are in line with my views. In fact, it is a more offensive position; I prefer the candidate that disagrees with me on policy to the one who seeks to deceive (or more accurately doesn't have the backbone to stand by what they believe).
Sen. Jim Jeffords (I), voted against the resolution, as did one Republican senator (I don't recall the name). If they had wanted to, the 50 Democrats in the Senate could have killed the bill without even resorting to a filibuster. They had the power in their hands to prevent a war that they didn't believe in and they did not do it. I find it hard to hold Democratic voters responsible for that.. They were stabbed in the back by their own representatives. I can only hope that they will do the right thing now and dump all these ass-clowns out on the street.
ps. long post... whew.. Notice the lack of banner ads at the top of our page now. Thank our friends at blogger.com. I was going to sign us up for the ad-free version ($15/yr) but their billing system is broken, and when I complained they said they were revamping their system, but would give us the ad-free version as a courtesy. :) Cool.
How To Make Friends and Influence People
The US exercised its veto on a UN resolution to condemn Israel's efforts to remove Arafat. The US was the only security council member to vote against the measure. It's almost like we're going out of our way to make it easy for Muslims to hate us...
Tuesday, September 16, 2003
Meet Dick Cheney
Here are some excerpts from Meet the Press, Sept. 14, in an interview between Tim Russert and Vice President Cheney. Enjoy...
Regarding the award of a major Iraq reconstruction contract to Haliburton:
MR. RUSSERT: Why is there no bidding?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: I have no idea. Go ask the Corps of Engineers. One of the things to keep in mind is that Halliburton is a unique kind of company.
Regarding the poll of Iraqis I mentioned on Sep 11:
VICE PRES. CHENEY: One of the questions it asked is: “If you could have any model for the kind of government you’d like to have”—and they were given five choices—”which would it be?” The U.S. wins hands down.
[The U.S. was preferred by 37% of respondents, Saudi Arabia by 28%.]
If you want to ask them do they want an Islamic government established, by 2:1 margins they say no, including the Shia population.
[Accurate here, although the Sunnis are split evenly]
If you ask how long they want Americans to stay, over 60 percent of the people polled said they want the U.S. to stay for at least another year.
[Over 60% of those with an opinion said they want the U.S. to stay]
Regarding weapons of mass distruction in Iraq:
VICE PRES. CHENEY: I guess the intriguing thing, Tim, on the whole thing, this question of whether or not the Iraqis were trying to acquire uranium in Africa. In the British report, this week, the Committee of the British Parliament, which just spent 90 days investigating all of this, revalidated their British claim that Saddam was, in fact, trying to acquire uranium in Africa. What was in the State of the Union speech and what was in the original British White papers.
Wow...
Regarding the award of a major Iraq reconstruction contract to Haliburton:
MR. RUSSERT: Why is there no bidding?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: I have no idea. Go ask the Corps of Engineers. One of the things to keep in mind is that Halliburton is a unique kind of company.
Regarding the poll of Iraqis I mentioned on Sep 11:
VICE PRES. CHENEY: One of the questions it asked is: “If you could have any model for the kind of government you’d like to have”—and they were given five choices—”which would it be?” The U.S. wins hands down.
[The U.S. was preferred by 37% of respondents, Saudi Arabia by 28%.]
If you want to ask them do they want an Islamic government established, by 2:1 margins they say no, including the Shia population.
[Accurate here, although the Sunnis are split evenly]
If you ask how long they want Americans to stay, over 60 percent of the people polled said they want the U.S. to stay for at least another year.
[Over 60% of those with an opinion said they want the U.S. to stay]
Regarding weapons of mass distruction in Iraq:
VICE PRES. CHENEY: I guess the intriguing thing, Tim, on the whole thing, this question of whether or not the Iraqis were trying to acquire uranium in Africa. In the British report, this week, the Committee of the British Parliament, which just spent 90 days investigating all of this, revalidated their British claim that Saddam was, in fact, trying to acquire uranium in Africa. What was in the State of the Union speech and what was in the original British White papers.
Wow...
Re: The Great Litmus Test
I'm not sure I can add much to this eloquent discussion, except to say that you are both right in the ideal world of a republic. The very nature of a republic places responsibility in the hands of both the people and also the representatives of the people. It is therefore incumbent upon the representatives AND the people to engage in deliberation, particularly on such important issues as authorizing use of force against other nations or enhancing executive powers at the possible expense of civil liberties.
I see two major complicating factors to this idealistic description of responsibility in our republic. First, the representatives, and not the people, have far greater access to relevant information in the current political system. This includes not only public information available on the issue at hand, but more importantly sensitive or classified information that would not be available to the general public for some time. It is unreasonable to expect that the American people can make an informed decision on sensitive issues (such as those described above) because they are not likely to have the necessary information. For example, we (the public) had to take the Bush administration's word when they claimed initially that Iraq posed a serious threat to our security. However, our representatives did not have to take the administration's word. They (at least some of them) most certainly had access to intelligence reports and to experts that would be able to help them assess the credibility of the reports. Because of the privileged nature of such information, the greater responsibility now lies with the representatives to make a careful, considered decision.
Second, and already implied, our representatives possess the authority to make policy decisions on the daily level, while the American people do not. The people can at some point hold their representatives accountable, but this is rarely an expedient process. It is therefore up to the representatives in particular to educate themselves and be aware of current issues, as their daily decisions will have profound impacts on the United States and the world.
In the cases of authorization of use of force against Iraq and passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, I believe that our Congress largely failed to live up to their responsibilities as representatives of the people. They had far greater access to information regarding the threat posed by Iraq, and the immediate authority they held required a greater responsibility to educate themselves on these issues, which they apparently did not do.
I see two major complicating factors to this idealistic description of responsibility in our republic. First, the representatives, and not the people, have far greater access to relevant information in the current political system. This includes not only public information available on the issue at hand, but more importantly sensitive or classified information that would not be available to the general public for some time. It is unreasonable to expect that the American people can make an informed decision on sensitive issues (such as those described above) because they are not likely to have the necessary information. For example, we (the public) had to take the Bush administration's word when they claimed initially that Iraq posed a serious threat to our security. However, our representatives did not have to take the administration's word. They (at least some of them) most certainly had access to intelligence reports and to experts that would be able to help them assess the credibility of the reports. Because of the privileged nature of such information, the greater responsibility now lies with the representatives to make a careful, considered decision.
Second, and already implied, our representatives possess the authority to make policy decisions on the daily level, while the American people do not. The people can at some point hold their representatives accountable, but this is rarely an expedient process. It is therefore up to the representatives in particular to educate themselves and be aware of current issues, as their daily decisions will have profound impacts on the United States and the world.
In the cases of authorization of use of force against Iraq and passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, I believe that our Congress largely failed to live up to their responsibilities as representatives of the people. They had far greater access to information regarding the threat posed by Iraq, and the immediate authority they held required a greater responsibility to educate themselves on these issues, which they apparently did not do.
Monday, September 15, 2003
Re: The Great Litmus Test
My earlier post was not meant to quarrel with the value of a republic, but rather to assign chief responsibility for our predicament to the people. Ours is, after all, a government by the people and for the people. But as we have now gone down this road, we might as well see where it leads. And I recruit Thomas Jefferson as my traveling companion.
I wholeheartedly agree that our "system needs to be constructed in such a manner as to be able weather these storms of turbulent sentiment." It is precisely the structural integrity of our Constitution that is its value, not its representatives. Of course, I do not mean to say there is no worth to great leaders, only that it is the system and not these leaders that makes our nation great.
Joe, you claim that "the very reason for [elected representatives'] existence is an effort to buffer public policy from the random tides of public opinion." Who are these representatives but humans as destined to err as the next? (Indeed, the self-selection of politicians may lead them to even greater fallibility). Jefferson put it best: "Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question." (First inaugural Address (Mar. 4, 1801)). History has cried out the answer, but it appears to have fallen on deaf ears. But deafness isn't what plagues us most; rather, people have lost the will or capacity to speak. And "all tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." (Jefferson, reference unknown).
Delegation of authority should not distance the government from the people but should afford the people greater access. For "governments are republican only in proportion as they embody the will of their people, and execute it." (Jefferson, Letter to Samuel Kercheval (July 12, 1816)). Representatives can invest greater effort exploring the complexity of government and navigate through the tumult of the masses, but they must not never transcend their delegation. "I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion." (Jefferson, Letter to William Charles Jarvis (Sept. 28, 1820)).
I fear that people conflate the delegation of authority with delegation of responsibility. If Congress has failed in any respect, it has abdicated its duty to educate the public and attended to its own concerns as though somehow separate from the people. But it is the people in the end who must be blamed for their ignorance or at least their inattentiveness. "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." (Jefferson, Letter to Colonel Charles Yancey (Jan. 6, 1816)).
"Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day." (Jefferson, Letter to Du Pont de Nemours (Apr. 24, 1816)).
I wholeheartedly agree that our "system needs to be constructed in such a manner as to be able weather these storms of turbulent sentiment." It is precisely the structural integrity of our Constitution that is its value, not its representatives. Of course, I do not mean to say there is no worth to great leaders, only that it is the system and not these leaders that makes our nation great.
Joe, you claim that "the very reason for [elected representatives'] existence is an effort to buffer public policy from the random tides of public opinion." Who are these representatives but humans as destined to err as the next? (Indeed, the self-selection of politicians may lead them to even greater fallibility). Jefferson put it best: "Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question." (First inaugural Address (Mar. 4, 1801)). History has cried out the answer, but it appears to have fallen on deaf ears. But deafness isn't what plagues us most; rather, people have lost the will or capacity to speak. And "all tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." (Jefferson, reference unknown).
Delegation of authority should not distance the government from the people but should afford the people greater access. For "governments are republican only in proportion as they embody the will of their people, and execute it." (Jefferson, Letter to Samuel Kercheval (July 12, 1816)). Representatives can invest greater effort exploring the complexity of government and navigate through the tumult of the masses, but they must not never transcend their delegation. "I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion." (Jefferson, Letter to William Charles Jarvis (Sept. 28, 1820)).
I fear that people conflate the delegation of authority with delegation of responsibility. If Congress has failed in any respect, it has abdicated its duty to educate the public and attended to its own concerns as though somehow separate from the people. But it is the people in the end who must be blamed for their ignorance or at least their inattentiveness. "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." (Jefferson, Letter to Colonel Charles Yancey (Jan. 6, 1816)).
"Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day." (Jefferson, Letter to Du Pont de Nemours (Apr. 24, 1816)).
Sunday, September 14, 2003
Re: The Great Litmus Test
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
