... Same as the Old Bush?

The old Bush, if you recall, expressed wistfully that the best outcome for Iraq would have been to replace Hussein with a somewhat more enlightened dictator, strong enough to maintain a unified nation. For the past couple of years, the new Bush has been asserting that we are going to "bring democracy" to Iraq. Some have doubted the new Bush's sincerity on this issue, while others have questioned whether democracy in a nation where the majority is likely to vote for a form of Shiite theocracy is the best outcome. Some suggest that the new Bush may be confusing elections with democracy.

But now there is a suggestion that Bush is becoming more "pragmatic" in his views of "democratization". That is, he may be looking for the dictator his father desired:

The plan Washington forced on Bremer last month abandoned the Pentagon's policy of steady progress towards democracy through an elected assembly. The new plan was more urgent, a "transfer of power" to a provisional government next July, with the hope of elections thereafter. This government would be selected from the three provinces on a local "show of hands". It would run the new Iraqi army and police force and enjoy some patronage over oil revenue and $US19 billion ($25.8 billion) of aid.

Now this plan appears also to be in disarray. After witnessing the present governing council, the White House has understandably lost faith in Iraqi assemblies, however chosen. Evidence of economic recovery means nothing when Iraqis associate US occupation with fear and lawlessness.

Iraq has only ever been held together by brute force. Washington is grudgingly accepting the view that this is unlikely to change. A new leader is needed to prevent the place becoming a global magnet for what the Arabist historian Bernard Lewis calls "new causes for anger, new dreams of fulfilment, new tools of attack"

Lyrics for GW?

Comments

Soldier's Story

The New York Times presents a fascinating account of life on the "front lines" in Iraq, as compared to "life in a bubble" for those who are secured in the "Green Zone".

Comments

"Conservative" Protectionism

It is interesting to observe what passes for the far left and the far right in this country, when it comes to "free trade". On the wacky left, we have the "anti-globalization" activists who stand for... well, I'm not sure what they stand for, but they're against "globalization." Another more moderate faction of the left believes that free trade can help impoverished nations develop and provide better lives for their people. The wacky "right" preaches "free trade" for U.S. exports and trade barriers for foreign imports. A more moderate faction of the right preaces self-interest - that we should use trade barriers to protect domestic industries, and to force developing nations to sell us raw materials for us to turn into manufactured goods as opposed to allowing them to develop their own manufacturing industries - moderated, of course, by third world sweatshops where labor-intensive goods can be made at a low cost. (Please don't get me wrong here - a majority of Democrats seeming falls into the category of the "selfish right" when it comes to trade issues.)

These self-interested efforts by the right can at time seem cartoonish, such as legislating that Vietnamese catfish can't be sold as "catfish" in American stores and restaurants, but simultanously (and fraudulently) claiming that Vietnamese catfish farmers were "dumping" their products at below-market prices to the detriment of domestic catfish. Whether or not Vietnamese catfish are or are not "catfish", it seems, depends upon which classification furthers the government's immediate protectionist goal.

These days, President Bush seems to waver between the wacky right and the self-interested right. Although I guess it could be argued that his wackiness is motivated by a different form of self-interest - the goal of buying votes in swing states through the imposition of illegal trade barriers. (William F. Buckley reminds those who hate the World Trade Organization that the U.S. was a leader in its creation, and, of course, "If the idea is free trade, then somebody has to have the authority to rule that you're cheating.") If you have recently heard Tom Usher complaining about the repeal of steel tariffs, consider whether his fund raising efforts and participation in a Bush Administration transition team played more of a role in the imposition of those tariffs than did actual need.

As a result of this renewed focus on trade barriers, there have been some interesting articles and editorials on the issue of U.S. agricultural subsidies. The New York Times editorialized about cotton subsidies, noting that some of the rules which permit first world agricultural subsidies are due to expire next year. It also notes that, despite those rules, the Bush Administration has nonetheless granted improper subsidies for U.S. cotton:

American cotton costs a great deal to produce by international standards. Yet even though global cotton prices were crashing from 1999 to 2002, our share of global exports grew to 40 percent, from 25 percent. That was because Washington propped up King Cotton with $12.9 billion in subsidies. We were, in effect, paying the rest of the world to buy American product rather than the cheaper cotton grown in Africa and South America. In recent arguments in its W.T.O. case, Brazil offered credible expert testimony that absent Washington's subsidies, America would have exported some 40 percent less cotton. That actually seems like a conservative estimate. Still, it illustrates the magnitude of the injustice being perpetrated against poor nations for which cotton might be the only competitive export.

Similar attention is being directed at sugar subsidies which, though legal, massively raise the price of sugar for U.S. consumers. (We don't really notice, because sugar remains cheap even at "twice the price".)

One of the problems with subsidies is that, once they take root, it is very hard to eliminate them. At the start of World War II, concerns over the supply of beeswax, used to seal munitions for overseas shipment, led to subsidies for bee farmers. Those subsidies remain in place. Jimmy Carter's family became wealthy as "gentleman farmers" growing heavily subsidized peanuts. While states collect billions of dollars from the tobacco industry's settlement of their suits over health care costs caused by smoking, we continue to subsidize tobacco farmers. It has been suggested that, had Congress taken its present approach to failing industries during the 19th Century, we would still have blacksmith shops - and that argument is compelling.

Comments

Winning Hearts and Minds

Tough New Tactics by U.S. Tighten Grip on Iraq Towns - The results, no doubt, of a cultural sensitivity class:

"You have to understand the Arab mind," Capt. Todd Brown, a company commander with the Fourth Infantry Division, said as he stood outside the gates of Abu Hishma. "The only thing they understand is force — force, pride and saving face."

Comments

Thanksgiving Photo Op?

Since Bush's visit to Iraq on Thanksgiving, although the Democrats who vie for his jof have pretty much left him alone, there has been some press coverage (particularly from overseas) and a lot of domestic discussion which criticizes his trip - some of it rather harsh. The leading criticisms seem to be:

1. His trip wasn't very "brave" because of the secret manner in which he whisked into (and quickly whisked out of) the country. (Variant: It wasn't really a visit to Iraq, because he didn't actually see anything but the interior of a military base.)


2. Bush has the time to jet in and out of Iraq, but can't find the time to go to the funeral or memorial service of even one soldier who has been killed in Iraq.


3. He grabbed a turkey centerpiece for a photo op, although the troops were served from steam trays.


4. It was yet another extraordinarily expensive media stunt, to provide footage for an election commercial.

One pundit suggests that, when confronted with this type of situation, Bush's critics should take a step back and ask themselves, "How would I react had Clinton done this?" Hm. Perhaps not the best test. Had Clinton secretly jetted to Iraq for a quick "rally the troops" moment, I have no doubt that he would have been skewered by right-wing commentators, and I personally would have likely viewed it as a media stunt.... (But then, perhaps that reality check works best with people who loved Clinton.) Okay... this much - I would not have accused Clinton of orchestrating a media stunt had he "hammed it up" with the Turkey centerpiece, so I will grant Bush (whose reputation for "hamming it up" in similar circumstances is substantial) that one on the basis of the "Clinton" test.

But even accepting the criticisms, there's cause to believe that some good can come from Bush's Thanksgiving junket. First, he again put the prestige of his office behind the U.S. efforts in Iraq, and behind obtaining a positive outcome for the people of Iraq. For those of us who believe that finding a positive resolution of this situation is necessary to stabilizing the region and not endangering future generations, that's worth something. Even Bush's ardent cynics, while sometimes posing it as a character fault - refusal to acknowledge that he has made a mistake, or to change a publicly declared course of action, for fear of being weak or less than perfect - recognize that he does tend to stick to the positions he declares. His declarations make it harder for him to orchestrate a "cut and run", even if - perhaps particularly if - the war starts to hurt him in his upcoming election campaign.

Also, the U.S. military can sustain its presence in Iraq indefinitely, even with the current casualty rate. That means that one of the leading factors in the continued success of the mission. Higher troop morale should correlate to lower U.S. casualties, and I would hope also to lower Iraqi civilian casualties. Miserable troops are more likley to make mistakes, or to otherwise act inappropriately. If Bush's trip helped boost the morale of U.S. forces in the region, that's a good result.

Comments

There's "Making a Point", then there's what Sowell's doing....

Forgive me - I had mistakenly assumed that Sowell was done with his rants against "busybodies".

It appears that the long gas lines during the OPEC oil boycott in the 1970's were the fault of Ted Kennedy, who in the face of long lines and shortfalls called for price controls. Ronald Reagan, coming into power after the boycott ended, apparently "saved they day". While I share Sowell's skepticism of price controls, perhaps it should be acknowledged that OPEC's boycott had more to do with the price of oil and long lines at the pumps than "price controls"? Or that the notion of "price controls" was advocated previously by the horrible liberal busybody Richard Nixon - for that matter, Nixon also imposed wage controls....

So evil liberals like Ted Kennedy and Richard Nixon impose their notions of "fairness" on what Sowell believes should be a free market for human organs, oil, and farm land free of zoning restrictions. And, as it seems, this whole "busybody" thing is driven by a Nixonian passion for the poor:

When the issue is posed as "the free market" versus "compassion for the poor," which do you think is likely to win out?

Our bloated and ever-growing welfare state -- from which the poor get a very small share, by the way -- answers that question.

Perhaps somebody can explain that in a comment. The U.S. has the stingiest social welfare system in the developed world. Sowell seems to be complaining that the "welfare state" is growing because of "busybodies" who want to help the poor, but not to the benefit of the poor.

Is Sowell referencing the huge new prescription drug benefit signed into law by President Bush - a subsidy that will largely help seniors who are not poor? Is he complaining about massive new agricultural subsidies signed into law by Bush - welfare for corporate farms which, again, are not poor? Is he complaining about Bush's steel tariffs, which forced up the price of many manufactured goods in order to protect the domestic steel industry - corporate welfare at its finest? The multi-billion dollar subsidies that Bush wishes to provide to wealthy U.S. corporate interests through his proposed "energy bill"? There seems to be little doubt that this nation's corporate welfare rolls are swelling to unprecedented levels under President Bush.

So when Sowell whines about "'the free market' versus 'compassion for the poor,'" he means to condem evil "liberal busybodies" for advocating for the poor, whom Sowell acknowledges are getting less and less of the welfare pie, but that it is fine for "conservatives" to expand that welfare pie as long as the benefits are shifted to corporate interests (most of which need no subsidy in the "free market")? Free markets should only govern if we're speaking of building an industrial plant in an evil "open space" next to a poor neighborhood (a net social good, in Sowell's mind, as it not only represents the "free market" in action, it makes the neighboring housing more affordable - perhaps costing little more than one one could get for selling one's "spare kidney"), but we should wear our blinkers when it comes to noticing the enormous subsidy handed to the wealthy corporation that is building the industrial plant?

Sowell concludes,

Because of the innumerable problems caused by busybodies who devote "a most unnecessary attention" to things that would be better without them, the rest of us should devote some very necessary attention to these busybodies and their sloppy arguments.

I think, in the context of these columns, he's describing himself.

Comments

Welcome to 1925

According to The Associated Press:

A seventh-grade social studies teacher in Presque Isle who said he was barred from teaching about non-Christian civilizations has sued his school district, claiming it violated his First Amendment right of free expression.

Perhaps he should call Clarence Darrow.

Comments

Sowell's "Busybodies"

In recent columns, Thomas Sowell is playing the role of the curmudgeon, bitterly complaining about "busybodies" who are supposedly unduly interfering with our freedoms. His first column laments that people aren't permitted to sell their organs:

I happen to know a lady who was born with three kidneys -- and in poverty. Do you think she would have minded parting with a spare kidney, in order to have a better life for herself and her children?

Leaving aside for the moment the fact that it is extremely unlikely that the "spare kidney" would be viable, what makes Sowell think that an open market for kidneys would permit this woman's sale to provide a "better life" for her family? Particularly given his subsequent statement,

Three economists have estimated the cost of buying an organ in a free market at a price well within most people's budgets.

More to the point, kidneys are already available for sale (in some cases in violation of laws nobody seems interested in enforcing) in places like India and the Philippines, with questionable economic benefit for many of the "donors". The necessary safety net to provide for any complications to U.S.-based donors, such as providing for health insurance to cover any associated short-term and long-term complications - costs Sowell would surely want to be borne by the purchaser and not the state - would push the cost of domestic organs significantly above the cost of "imports".

Please note that compelling arguments can and have been made for creating greater social rewards for organ donation, for removing the "ick" factor which makes families uncomfortable with approving donations even where their loved ones have completed organ donor cards, and even for providing some financial return in certain situations. But, even given that reality, Sowell's analysis is uncharacteristically shallow.

In his next column, Sowell complains about regulations aimed at "preserving farmland", which apparently prevented the father of one of his readers from selling his farmland to developers. Sowell argues that this means the farmer "cannot get anywhere near the land's market value", meaning of course that he cannot get the value he would have received if the use of the land were changed. Obviously, he can sell it for the same purpose as he used it - as farmland.

Sowell argued that restrictions meant to "preserve" farmland are unnecessary as we have an agricultural surplus, and that this type of restriction constitutes an unconstitutional taking. He rails that "busybodies" have no more rights under the Constitution than anybody else:

In other words, people who want to wring their hands about farmlands or wetlands, or about some obscure toad or snake, have no more rights than people who don't care two cents about such things. It is hard for those who have presumptions of being the morally anointed to accept that, but that is what the Constitution says.

Again, I grant that there is some basis to Sowell's complaints - but there is also great merit in preserving open spaces and arable farmland, and even in preventing excess urban sprawl. It's a classic battle of the rights of the individual versus the rights of the collective. Sowell prefers a libertarian position, where it is every man for himself, whatever the long- or short-term consequence for the community or the environment. And, perhaps unaware of the costs, he ignores the burdens on local governments of providing and maintaining roads, water and power lines, fire and police services, and other support for the communities he desires to be built on what is presently farmland. Sowell may benefit from a review of the Federalist Papers, as his argument exemplifies the reasons why our Founding Fathers chose representative government over direct democracy.

Sowell also presents what I consider to be an absurd claim:

The real reason for preventing farmland from being sold to those who might build housing on it is that the people who live in that housing might not be as upscale as those already living nearby. Developers -- heaven forbid -- might build apartments or townhouses in a community where people live in single-family homes.

For many years, I would drive to Plainfield, Illinois on an annual basis. In the 1980's, after leaving the highway for Plainfield Road, this involved driving past mile after mile of cornfields. Through the 1990's much of that farmland was developed - and I don't recall seeing a single residence that could be characterized as less "upscale" than that of Plainfield. Meanwhile, the people of Plainfield faced additional pressure on their schools and public services, while likely often seeing their own home values decline in comparison to the new development.

While I will grant that sometimes farmland is acquired for the development of "manufactured home communities", and that there is often fierce local resistance to such development due to concerns about the low tax income from such development, and the high cost to area communities for policing and serving a high-density, low income population, that's the exception, not the rule. Most developers have no interest in building low income housing, as it is not where they can expect to maximize the return on their investments.They are buying the land to build what you will see if you drive down Plainfield Road - large houses on relatively small lots, designed for people who want to "live in the country" (or at least outside of the city) in a big house while also having a reasonable commute into work. Sowell has to know this.

In his third essay, which rails about "liberals" who demand that developers produce "affordable housing":

One of the staples of liberal hand-wringing is a need for "affordable housing." Last year, the standard liberal solution -- more government spending -- was proposed in a televised speech at the National Press Club in Washington, in a report billed as a "new vision."

Presumably, this means that the "busybodies" of his former essay were "conservatives" - as he was then arguing that "busybodies" were trying to prevent affordable housing.

Sowell observes that there is a glut of rental units in much of the country, and that housing cost is primarily a problem "confined to a relatively few places along the east and west coasts". He goes on to complain that this would be resolved if local governments woud lift restrictions on the development of land surrounding these major urban areas.

The New York Times story refers gingerly to "many cities on the coasts, where new construction is more difficult" than in the rest of the country. To put it more bluntly, liberals have driven housing prices sky high by forbidding, restricting, and harassing the building of housing.

In turn, this has meant driving people of modest incomes out of the communities where they work. Nurses, teachers and policemen, for example, typically live far away from places like San Francisco or Silicon Valley, and have to commute long distances to and from work.

Now, granted, if you allow for completely unrestricted development, the odds are that eventually you will get a housing surplus which will result in lower rents and housing values. But it is more than fair to ask, "at what cost"?

Sowell again resorts to the thesis that if more housing is built, it will be affordable housing. (As my friends in California have pointed out, there are neighborhoods even in the population centers which are comparatively quite affordable - it's just that most people don't want to live there.) If prime open spaces and parklands are opened to developers in areas with some of the highest housing costs in the nation, Sowell asks us to presuppose that developers will prefer to take a hit in the pocketbook in order to provide low income and moderately priced housing, as opposed to building upscale developments and McMansions so as to maximize their profits. Sowell seems to believe that the market should govern land prices and uses, but that developers will ignore the market when choosing what to build on their land. It's a nice dream, but it isn't likely to be the reality.

Comments

You Mean, There's a Long Term?

In today's Times, Bill Safire cautions us not to get too exuberant in what he sees as an amazing financial recovery for the nation, for fear of causing another bubble.

If the market keeps going up and the "wealth effect" further boosts consumer confidence, if economic figures continue to dance with Rosie Scenario, and if government mindlessly continues to stimulate with heavy domestic spending an economy that no longer needs stimulation — then all bets on the coming boom are off.

We could count on Chairman Greenspan to tighten money and resuscitate "irrational exuberance" if growth hormones race through the body politic. But as we saw in the 90's, that would not be enough to avert boom-and-bust.

Something Safire doesn't mention, but which has been a low murmer in the back of a lot of global economic discussion over the past two years, is the fall of the dollar as compared to the Euro. In today's London Guardian, Polly Tonybee observes,

Meanwhile, the euro soars to its highest level against a dollar sinking fast, due to Bush's deficits. Odd how the eurosceptic press that crowed at the euro's "weakness" now simply fails to report its steep rise. Significantly, business sees what's in the wind. The UPS Europe Business Monitor yesterday reported a majority of British businessmen now think the euro will displace the dollar as the main international currency reserve.

A majority of British businessmen, sitting in a nation which has refused to join the Euro, feels that way? Then perhaps Safire's concern should be something more than, "Will this deficit-driven 'recovery' last six months or two years?" Because an international shift to the Euro, driven by those same out-of-control deficits, will likely have a much more profound effect on our long-term economic future.

Comments

The Winning Caption

The best suggested caption I have heard to date for this most interesting photo is: "No football? No problem!" (Thanks, Lynne.)

Comments

Government For Sale

In today's Washington Post, E.J. Dionne speaks of The Politics of Payoff, and looks at the beneficiaries of the Bush Administration's wild spending spree.

The Post also discusses the Bush Administration's steel tariffs, noting, "Not only were the steel tariffs purely about domestic politics from the start, no one in the administration ever pretended otherwise. Their main purpose, which no one denied, was to win back some of the steel country votes the president lost in the 2000 elections."

Comments

It's Breaking Out All Over?

In today's Washington Post, Fred Hiatt presents "The Nitty-Gritty of Democracy, which examines the treatment of an Egyptian human rights activist both by her own government and by ours:

Dr. Seif El Dawla, a psychiatrist who was in this country to receive an award from Human Rights Watch, founded the Egyptian Association Against Torture and helps run a clinic for female victims of violence, whether state-sponsored or domestic. She has battled religious intolerance as well as government repression, thus occupying the narrow space that administration officials now say must be expanded if democracy in the region is to take root.

But over the past few months, as President Mubarak's regime has refused to register her organization, she says she has sensed no support from the U.S. Embassy.

He also observes that, rather than democratizing, Morocco "seems to have made the decision to restrict liberty in the name of security".

Hiatt also writes,

In an interview last week, an administration official knowledgeable about Mideast policy acknowledged that some skepticism is to be expected. "We don't have a lot of credibility in some places," the official said. "People understandably say, for decades you haven't cared about democracy and you haven't cared about human rights. . . . Part of what we have to do, and what I hope we're beginning to do, is show people that we are serious, that we're here for the long term."

Which, perhaps, explains why we're ignoring Dr. El Dawla, and closing Iraqi media outlets in the name of security - to advance our notions of democracy and free speech.

Comments

Staying With A Statistical Theme....

In "The Productivity Paradox", today's New York Times poses some interesting questions regarding the accuracy of worker productivity statistics, pointing out

For example, in financial services, the Labor Department tells us that the average workweek has been unchanged, at 35.5 hours, since 1988. That's patently absurd. Courtesy of a profusion of portable information appliances (laptops, cell phones, personal digital assistants, etc.), along with near ubiquitous connectivity (hard-wired and now increasingly wireless), most information workers can toil around the clock. The official data don't come close to capturing this cultural shift.

The article theorizes that investment in new technology may be behind the upsurge:

This resulted in an increase of the portion of gross domestic product that went to capital spending. With the share of capital going up, it follows that the share of labor went down. Thus national output was produced with less labor in relative terms — resulting in a windfall of higher productivity. Once the migration from the old technology to the new starts to peak, this transitional productivity dividend can then be expected to wane.

The author briefly mentions "the growing use of overseas labor" as part of this "recent productivity miracle", but this mention brought a question to my mind - to what degree is the upsurge explained not by productivity gains, but by the fact that many hourly "white collar" positions are now being shipped overseas? When you call for product or service support, or receive a call from a telemarketer, or hire a company to perform some custom programming, often you will find yourself dealing directly (albeit invisibly) or indirectly with overseas workers. If we shift jobs which might fit a theoretical "35.5 hour" work week to nations such as India, do we artificially inflate our own nation's productivity? And at what cost?

Comments

Unemployment Statistics

Back when I was in high school, I went to a meeting mostly of adults where there was the obligatory introduction session - what's your name, and "what do you do?", the two things that seem to most define us in modern America. One person, for his avocation, stated, "I'm in government statistics", a clever euphemism for "I'm unemployed". But given the changes of the past two decades, I'm not sure that his claim would still hold true.

In "The Unemployment Myth", the New York Times presents a brief history of the manipulation of unemployment statistics by this nation's political parties, and makes a brief but compelling argument for reforms which would make unemployment figures meaningful.

One thing the article doesn't mention is the exclusion of "discouraged workers" from unemployment statistics, although I think it is implicit that any meaningful reform would take them into account.

Comments

Victims of Crime

A week ago, Colbert King of the Washington Post wrote a column which described how a D.C. Superior Court Judge had sentenced a habitual criminal to probation and drug treatment, following his conviction for burglary. Mr. King noted:

The record shows that Scarborough has entered guilty pleas to three counts of burglary and one count of receiving stolen property. You also learn that he has been tied to more than 30 burglaries and has had four prior convictions, including possession of cocaine in 1998 and carrying a pistol without a license in 1997.

I am habitually cautious of editorials which declaim against judges as "soft on crime", as often the columnist doesn't understand the legal issues, or (worse) is misrepresenting the facts or issues so as to inflame his audience. However, I had to concede that Mr. King has a very strong point - in this case, the defendant really should have been incarcerated.

Today, Mr. King provides a follow-up editorial, in which he describes some of the feedback he received to his prior piece. Some of the feedback was very much on his side, while some of it was very much in support of the judge. Some of the rhetoric was unfortunate, particularly in my opinion as it related to justifying or excusing the defendant's conduct or the "slap on the wrist" penalty applied by the court. Some of the comments, such as the thought that the judge must be frustrated with the system, and that incarceration doesn't (necessarily) solve society's problems, do have some validity - even if I disagree with their application to this particular defendant.

When I managed a delicatessen during my undergraduate days, I had a number of incidents where I suspected or knew that an employee was stealing. Often the most egregious theft is by a newer employee, one who is hard to like, or one who anticipates changing jobs - but sometimes it's a long-term, trusted employee. It is, I think, difficult for people to understand what it is like to discover that somebody you know (or, at least, think you know) and trust turn out to be a thief. It didn't need to be my money for there to be a real sense of betrayal. During that time I was also the "victim" of a very peculiar burglary - and I guess I should count myself as fortunate in that it didn't change my personal sense of safety or make me feel like the sanctity of my home had been violated. But I do know people who, following a burglary, need a lot of time to regain a feeling of safety and security in their own homes.

When I later practiced criminal law, I represented a number of embezzlers, and also a number of burglars. I would like to say that I sensed great remorse, or that they were learning from their mistakes, but my dominant memories of the embezzlers are of those who couldn't understand why the prosecutor, judge and (ultimately) probation officer who prepared their pre-sentence report thought they did anything particularly bad. The "burglars" were a more eclectic group, and, due to Michigan's statutory scheme, I am lumping a number of categories of criminal under that label. But most took little responsibility for their actions, and I can't recall any who had a real grasp of the effect of their conduct on their victims.

I am certainly not arguing that probation should not be extended to embezzlers and burglars, particularly for a first offense. Even the Lord High Executioner accepted that the punishment should fit the crime. However, I do think that once a person goes through the system, that person should be imbued with the sense that the Sword of Damocles is now suspended by a hair above his or her head, and that they really don't want to come back before the court.

When a defendant in modern America has been connected with approximately thirty burglaries, and convicted of a number of them, probation simply is not an appropriate penalty. Which of the four basic goals of sentencing - punishment, retribution, rehabilitation, and deterrence - were advanced by giving this particular defendant probation?

To paraphrase the Governator, "He'll be back".

Comments

The AARP and Medicare "Reform"

The New York Times (courtesy of the Associated Press) informs us today that the "AARP Faces Revolt Over Medicare Bill". The article notes:

The law sets up competition between traditional Medicare and private plans, beginning in 2010. Activists worry that could lead to the privatization of Medicare and place the elderly in the hands of "insurance sharks" more concerned about profits than quality medical care. Elderly people have also questioned the AARP's motives, because it has a for-profit arm that earns royalties from the sale of health insurance.

Two pieces, not quite put together by the author....

The AARP is already huge in the health, life, and "Medigap" insurance business. Also, the AARP has been positioning itself as a provider of pharmacy services and as a drug vendor. What will this bill do, but put the AARP in the position of being an alternative provider, able to negotiate bulk discounts for member drug purchases, and providing "one stop shopping" for both insurance coverage and medication needs?

You think the AARP's approximately $150 million per year in revenues from insurance sales is impressive? If they manage to capture a significant piece of this new $400 billion Medicare entitlement and massively expand their role as a drug vendor, that's going to look like chump change.

Comments

Thanksgiving

Happy Thanksgiving.

Comments

Escaping the Quagm... Um, Long Hard Slog

The London Guardian today offers eight diverse viewpoints on how the U.S. (um, I mean, "the coalition") can move forward in Iraq. While I encourage you to read the whole presentation, here are some quotes:

"The historian - Paul Kennedy"

One wishes that the term "exit strategy" was not bandied about at all. Although the conservatives deny the comparison, it has deep echoes of Vietnam. Exit strategies from a conflict, such as Napoleon's retreat from Moscow or the British army heading towards Dunkirk, are often desperate, hand-to-mouth affairs, and full of Clausewitzian frictions. They smell of defeat, and defeatism. Most importantly, the open discussion by one side of various ways of making an exit gives a tremendous morale and propaganda boost to the opposition - all they have to do now is to hang on until the terminus date itself, and sharpen their knives.

"The negotiator - David Owen"

Sadly, the Democrats look as if they will campaign against the war in Iraq but, one hopes, majority opinion will stay firm. They know Iraq is already a far better place following the removal of Saddam. Second, Bush is the first US president to recognise that we have all been far too complacent about the Middle East's undemocratic Arab governments. Third, Bush believes - and I think he is right - that we will not obtain peace in the Middle East unless there is a democratic Palestinian state to take its rightful place alongside Israel. Success for the US and UK policies in Iraq will produce major reforms in the Middle East and create the climate for an Israeli-Palestinian settlement. If the US and UK fail in Iraq it will further destabilise a Middle East where Saudi Arabia is looking very vulnerable and do immense harm to the cause of peace in Palestine and in Israel.

"The Iraqi - Mustafa Alrawi"

[T]he coalition has been hampered by its own mistakes. First, the disbandment of the army; second, the policy of de-Ba'athification; and third, above all, the creation of the governing council (GC). This unrepresentative, power-hungry and reactionary body has done a great deal to hold back political progress in Iraq.

"The Washington insider - James Rubin"

With conditions in Iraq deteriorating, there are three fundamental decisions that need to be made. First, what kind of role should the international community play? Second, what is the right force mix needed to defeat the growing insurgency? And third, how quickly should sovereignty return to a provisional Iraqi government?

"The Iraq expert - Said Aburish"

To correct the developing disaster in Iraq, we must replace the people on both sides who are responsible for it. The Iraqi peoples' growing nostalgia for Saddam is the strongest indication that the wrong Americans and Iraqis are running the show. My leading candidate for the chop is Dr Ahmad Chalabi, the American-appointed head of the governing council.

"The soldier - Tim Garden"

In Iraq, the scale of the security forces has been significantly greater than in Afghanistan. While the situation is not yet satisfactory, local despots cannot yet rule their areas unhindered. What is lacking is the sense of direction towards a new democratic Iraq. The Iraqi governing council is widely seen as an ineffectual creature of the US. While prudence means that the US has tried to include representatives of significant factions, they lack universal legitimacy. Now the US is set to hand power over to this council next July without fussing about a constitution or an election first.

"The defence expert - Dan Plesch"

The myth is that Iraqis need to be educated in democracy. The reality is that since the League of Nations mandate Iraqis have been allowed to take part in fake democracies, first to support a British-backed regime and then to elect Saddam's sham parliament. Elections were held repeatedly under Saddam. In many parts of Iraq, locally initiated elections have already taken place and provide the momentum for the election of a new government.

"The dissenter - Clare Short"

What we should do now in Iraq is what we should have done in the first place. Even after the rush to war and the deceit that went into it, it would have been possible to organise the reconstruction with international legitimacy and cooperation.

Comments

"You Don't Get It"

In a column which is very much worth reading, "Buzz Phrases That Deaden The Mind", Dick Meyer writes,

"Liberal bias" (LB) plays the exact same, irritating role for conservatives, Republicans and Clinton-Gore-haters. Michael Moore and Al Franken make good money with YDGI ["You Don't Get It"]. Ann Coulter, Bernard Goldberg, Laura Ingraham, Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News and literally scores of talk radio hosts make good money on LB.

The Washington Post is biased. The Washington Times is not. Get it?

Once the LB card is played, there can be no retort. You don't have a position, you have only a bias. I have no bias, just the power of true facts and pure logic, ergo I win.

As elitist as YDGI is, LB is more clever. The transformation of the word "liberal" into an insult is one of the great feats of ideological alchemy of the history of American political ideas. George Washington, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt were all liberal. But now the word is a socially acceptable ethnic slur.

Comments

Reaction Formation

Back during my undergraduate days, when taking one psychology class or another, I was introduced to the concept of "reaction formation". This psychological defense mechanism results in unacceptable impulses being converted to their opposite. The paradigm example was the anti-pornography crusader, who publicly laments the availability of 'smut' and 'obscenity', while simultaneously immersed (in a socially acceptable way) in the material he so deplores. (I won't refer to the "Meese Report" as a possible example, as that would be rude.)

Many will find cause to criticize the manner in which human sexuality is treated by the modern media. Whether it is the salacious "news" coverage of the Kobe Bryant or Michael Jackson sex assault allegations, the increasingly bizarre "dating" television programs or the "race to the bottom" in daytime TV with its "My eleven-year-old is out of control"-type prurient obsessions, or the attempt to revive or promote lousy television programming by adding suggestive jokes and content, there is plenty that will make many in our society uncomfortable. But obviously there are a lot of people who love, or love to hate, that type of programming - it is produced because it makes money. It could be argued that it holds up a mirror to American values - not those we profess, but those we actually live. It is the mainstream advertising dollar which causes this type of television to dominate the airwaves, not the fringe.

So back to reaction formation. When I heard about the Massachusetts decision which requires the state legislature to afford at least some form of marriage or "civil union" to gay couples, my reaction was essentially that it was good to afford gay adults the same rights in their relationships that we afford to heterosexual adults. It did not occur to me, as it apparently did to so many "conservatives", that recognizing gay marriage or civil unions would lead inexorably to the legalization of incest, polygamous marriage, or even adult-child relationships. And that leaves me wondering to what degree the "conservative" reaction is based upon ideology, and to what extent it is based upon "reaction formation" among the sexually obsessed who have sublimated their own desires but now project them onto the rest of society.

Leaving those thoughts behind for a moment, let's take a look at the latest from Cal Thomas, "Judging Michael Jackson and ourselves":

If Michael Jackson did, in fact, as it is alleged, have sex with a minor boy, what's wrong with that? The question is not meant to be cute; I am serious. If a male child was fondled or sodomized by Michael Jackson, why shouldn't he and the boy be allowed the orientation of their choice? If you disagree, who are you to impose your morality on them?

This statement is, according to Mr. Thomas, meant to outrage us - not because he is suggesting that Jackson's alleged victim "wanted it", but as an illustration of how "divorce, premarital sex, abortion, homosexuality, group sex, domestic partnerships and, soon, same-sex marriage" have become acceptable, with adult-child sex as, he supposes, the next likely target. He proceeds to lament the sexualized content of the latest "Abercrombie & Fitch Christmas Field Guide magazine, targeted to 10- to 13-year-olds", and provides us with his exact count of sexually suggestive images (although reciting that somebody else did the counting), and an abstract of the sexualized content.

And then Mr. Thomas protests, in relation to adult sex offenders,

Should we be surprised when some people act on the permission the media give them?

Yes, Cal, we should. Just as our violence-imbued media doesn't inspire otherwise law-abiding Americans to go on shooting sprees, and just as many people managed to watch and enjoy "Pulp Fiction" without running out to buy or try illegal drugs, seeing a child depicted in a sexually suggestive manner in no way constitutes "permission" to act unacceptably. Is Thomas commenting on how others might react, or is he speaking of his own reactions to such images, anticipating that others feel the same way? (It's not an unfair question to ask, given that he chooses to indict American society with his insinuations about such imagery.)

Before going on to misrepresent the significance of the diagnostic criteria set forth in the DSM-IV, Mr. Thomas continues,

The early sexualization of children has produced ever-earlier sexual activity (and pregnancy) among those children.

It has? Well, let's take a look at that assertion. As David Brooks notes in today's New York Times,

Teenage pregnancy and abortion rates rose in the early 1970's and 1980's, then leveled off and now are dropping.

(But why let the facts get in your way.)

Mr. Thomas then rails against sex education programs,

The sexualization of children is supported by state governments, many of which mandate sex education as early as kindergarten. School nurses dispense contraceptives and abortion advice without parental knowledge or approval. Teen magazines such as Cosmo Girl and Seventeen promote sexual activity for minor children. A British charity publishes a children's sex guide, "Say Yes, Say No, Say Maybe." It explains various positions and the excitement of intercourse.

It seems to me that "kindergarten sex ed" - which is inevitably going to focus on "good touch, bad touch" - would be something Mr. Thomas would endorse as protecting children from predators. But apparently it is better that children be ignorant even of "bad touches" than that they receive this insidious introduction to "sex education".

As for that British guide, which is apparently aimed at teens from fourteen to sixteen, the actual title of the publication is "Say Yes? Say No? Say Maybe?". Mr. Thomas misrepresents the title as if it is indifferent to what answer a teen gives. The actual title sends a very different message. And, given that "the excitement of intercourse" is one of the leading factors in why teens of that age end up engaged in unprotected sex, perhaps it isn't so bad that sex education materials address that issue? (In Mr. Thomas's world, though, perhaps it is better that teen sex be unprotected, to increase the odds that a "loose woman" will be "punished" with pregnancy....)

Comments