Monday, May 31, 2004

Erratic Errata

Compassionate Coercion

.
Which argument is more "liberal"?

"Though I dislike Hardin's term "mutual coercion mutually agreed upon," I think in terms of providing the best information (after all, "perfect information" is a presumption of an effecient economy), the government should be coercing us to listen to the best information available. Insofar as we mutually agree to it (ay, there's the rub.) - Reader J


The vast majority of the millions of people who need drug treatment are in denial about their addiction. Getting people into treatment -- including programs that call upon the power of faith -- will require us to create a new climate of "compassionate coercion," which begins with family, friends, employers, and the community. Compassionate coercion also uses the criminal justice system to get people into treatment. Americans must begin to confront drug use -- and therefore drug users -- honestly and directly. We must encourage those in need to enter and remain in drug treatment. The President's National Drug Control Strategy envisions making drug treatment available to many more Americans who need it. - White House

"Mutual coercion mutually agreed upon." "Compassionate coercion." I know that "slippery slope" is an overused trope... but clearly both these positions are points on a continuum... one I reject wholeheartedly.

When considering the benefits of smoking, one needs to take into account more than the mere impact upon health. Though health is quite important, it is not the sole criteria by which we assess our desires. Specifically, the habitual vice of smoking has a spiritual/mental dimension which is too often overlooked by non-smokers. Smoking will make you a better person. Now, I realize that's a subjective statement and indefensible. But as a man who's been a smoker and a non-smoker (and is currently on the non- side of the coin), I can honestly state that I believe it. If I'm not smoking again by the time I'm fifty, I'll have failed...

The argument against smoking, or gambling for that matter, proceeds by defining the scope by which "benefit" is to be exclusively defined. J writes of gambling, "insofar as those who can't afford it gamble, it poses a public well-being problem." However, "insofar as gambling yields a psychic dividend, it offers a public well-being solution." To the extent that arguments can be made against smoking or gambling on the basis of infringement upon the liberty of others (such as public smoking) or the imposition of unreasonable public costs (necessitating Social Security) then it is a legitimate political argument. But any argument for or against any given vice which is predicated purely upon the personal benefits or consequences of the choice has no basis in public policy discussion. That is the necessary implication of liberalism. Not libertarianism, which rejects the primacy of the political claim to trump the unfettered exercise of liberty. And not socialism, which subsumes the individual's well-being into the self-interest of the state. But of liberalism, properly defined - wherein the subject is the object of nothing save itself. The liberal self is obligated, never coerced.

Gratuitousness - When considering the health costs, it pays to remember that, if anything, the costs of smoking are starkly clearer than those of many other activities... at least most smokers expect to die from it. I can think of no other vice of which you could say the same...

Reading Rawls


I've been reading Rawls lately. There's an assumption leaping out of every page that I'm finding really distracting. The best articulation I've seen of it yet is found on page 119 of my copy (§20) - "Now obviously no one can obtain everything he wants; the mere existence of other persons prevents this." In one of those weird moments of intellectual/historical overlap, I've also been re-reading Solzhenitsyn lately in light of the Abu Ghraib scandals, as I've gotten the unsettling feeling that the abuses we witnessed there, though favorably comparable to the atrocities of Saddam, actually don't look too excusable in the light of some of history's other mass prison complexes. Specifically, Robbin Island, South Africa, as described by Nelson Mandela in his autobiography Long Walk To Freedom often seems far more humane than Abu Ghraib. Not, specifically the Soviet gulag. But I'd been re-reading it, and I couldn't help but cross-index Rawls' statement with the following (very sarcastic) passage from Solzhenitsyn :

It is a good thing to think in prison, but it is not bad in camp either. Because, and this is the main thing, there are no meetings. For ten years you are free from all kinds of meetings! Is that not mountain air? While thye openly claim your labor and your body, to the point of exhaustion and even death, the camp keepers do not encroach at all on your thoughts. They do not try to screw down your brains and to fasten them in place. And this results in a sensation of freedom of much greater magnitude than the freedom of one's feet to run along on the level.
No one tries to persuade you to apply for Party membership. No one comes around to squeeze membership dues out of you in voluntary societies. There is no trade union - the same kind of protector of your interests as an official lawyer befor a tribunal. And there are no "production meetings." You cannot be elected to any position. You cannot be appointed some kind of delegate. And the really important thing is ... that they cannot compel you to be a propagandist. Nor - to listen to propaganda. Nor - when someone jerks the string, to shout: "We demand! ... We will not permit! ..." Nor - will they ever drag you off to the electoral precinct to vote freely and secretly for a single candidate. No one requires any "socialist undertakings" of you. Nor - self-criticism of your mistakes. Nor - articles in the wall newspaper. Nor - an interview with a provincial correspondent.
A free head - now is that not an advantage of life in the Archipelago?

In light of the Solzhenitsyn quote, the Rawls quote seems partially insustainable... rather than being obstacles of desire is it not possible that social interaction is the medium of desire? There is, after all, nothing in Rawls' "index of primary goods" that hasn't been willingly, even gleefully forsaken. Anyhow, I need to learn more about the theory of demand... but it seems to me that the Pareto efficiency curve, from a utilitarian perspective as Rawls discusses it, presupposes that a finite limit on the capacity of two persons in community to experience desire is not a factual absurdity. I'm not sure how secure that presupposition is. I would be surprised if there isn't a body of literature on the topic...

Gambling and Math

Reader J also notes in a separate issue, re. gambling, "gambling is a tax on those who don't understand math (probability). And to the extent that it is extremely regressive in the distribution of its benefits, it bears governmental involvement." I would argue that gambling actually rewards people who can cross-factor two calculations simultaneously - risk/reward ratios against probability. I can highly recommend this old Slate article from 2001 by Jordan Ellenberg if you want a better sense of the rationality of gambling.

The gist of the argument is that the question isn't your absolute probability of victory, but the relationship between your esteemed value of the dollar spent on the ticket to the potential value of a fortunate outcome. J believes that poor people don't make good judgments in calculating these costs, and thus government should prevent people from gambling (maybe we should just prevent the poor? Then it would become a progressive tax!). I don't disagree with him on the factual premise (poor people tend to make unwise lottery choices), but I think it's foolish to tell someone that I have any knowledge which allows me to better know how to calculate their own subjective estimation values of their own earnings, possessions and opportunities. That's an individual thing - if someone like me buys a lotto ticket because they think it's a passport to speculation they otherwise wouldn't indulge - what specific evil lies in that transaction that the state should suddenly intervene between me and my own desire fulfillment?

Also, re. smoking, J writes:


Thus, there is some negative externality of the companies repeating ad naseum how good (or rather, fun or cool or whatever) smoking is.


To which I can only say that he's clearly bought the lie. Smoking is good for you. God, being a non-smoker sucks! I'm sticking with my resolution but I can't pretend for a single day that being a non-smoker is superior to being a smoker. So, to the extent that the cigarette companies happen to be right I think it's fair to ask, "why does the anti-smoking campaign need to silence the pro-smoking campaign? Is it because on every issue but health, the pro-smoking lobby is right?"

The government has every right to recoup public costs incurred by private choices from the agents responsible for those choices (i.e. sin taxes). It has no business arguing that smoking isn't cool, fun, or makes you feel better. Not only is that argument false, but it is up to invidiuals to calculate for themselves the best courses of actions for the furtherance of their individual sense of happiness. There are a lot of good reasons for banning smoking in public places. The moral betterment of the citizenry is never one of them.

Free Trade

Reader J (a blogger himself) responds with some objections to my post on Lou Dobbs and free trade (Dobbs is against in such a way that I'm against Dobbs).

Now Reader J objects that there are costs to the offshoring of American jobs. I can't disagree with that - I recognize it. But it's clear that the benefits outweigh the costs by several orders of magnitude. To distill the major points, and outline the rebuttal to them:


  • We export "low-wage jobs and environmental problems". I concede this is true. But I have a lot of faith in the ability of humans to adapt to environmental problems. Sometimes it takes a Three Mile Island to mobilize environmentally protective policies. Politics happens abroad as much as at home - and a more relevant benchmark of analysis is the fullness of American efforts to mitigate problems attributable to its own investments in foreign economies. As for "low-wage jobs," I can't think of any reason why the export of "low-wage jobs" should be classified as a problem.

  • Coca-Cola has been charged with various atrocities in Columbia against union leaders - Again, this is true, and certainly outrageous. But a more relevant question is not whether Coca-Cola did wrong (they did), but whether we can now make restitution by criminally prosecuting those who made criminal choices. Given that human rights violations by our corporations abroad can expose them to domestic liability (and galvanize political changes abroad to protect the rights of more humans), exportation of jobs abroad gives corporations incentives to spread our values of respect for human rights. Two cheap labor supplies - one with human rights protections, one without - it's the one with protections that exposes you to the lowest overall liability risk. I don't bring this up to apologize for the woeful standards of American corporations abroad - but their presence (OUR presence) abroad is precisely what gives us the stake and right to demand more liberties for persons abroad.

  • Labor standards are much lower in countries we export labor to. See above. Labor standards tend to rise over time...

  • the argument that we're helping them develop seems belied by the fact of the disarticulated/dual economy model. The "fact" of a model isn't an argument stemming from it. I would hope that Reader J will do me the favor of establishing his belief in the model's credibility (a key element of its facticity). From there, I'd like to see the argument bridging the gap between the model's facticity and the conclusion's prescriptions. Stay tuned...

  • those countries whose GDPs have risen rapidly have seen average income increase, but not so much of an increase in median incomes, quality of life for the bottom classes, or reduction of inequality. This strikes me as an article of faith that is unwarranted by the facts. In the 1950s and 1960s Japan regularly experienced 10% annual GDP growth. Today, the Japanese enjoy one of the world's highest standards of living. I can't speak to inequality - it doesn't bother me so long as certain minimum conditions of poverty are satisfied - but on all other benchmarks mentioned by J the Japanese today are unquestionably improved over the 50s. If industrialization takes a generation or more to reap its rewards, is that an argument against it? If anyone would like to parse the numbers with me, I highly recommend the Human Development Reports...


I could go on... At some point, I'd like to lay out my own defense for the globalization of free trade (and the unrepentant embrace of it's obvious costs) - for people who should never expect to receive a tangible benefit from it, and even reasonably expect to face unwanted costs... until then, there's a defense of outsourcing in the current issue of Foreign Affairs. My first reaction was that it was a rather dismal defense, but it's worth reading...

Film Note - The Day After Tomorrow

The Day After Tomorrow



There are some movies that are definitively embedded in a genre. I can say with a straight face, "Resident Evil is the best flesh-eating zombie movie out there." Now, you might accept that there are GOOD flesh-eating zombie movies, in which case, you probably want to see Resident Evil because it represents the best expression of the genre's archetype. There are other flesh-eating zombie movies - some even quite good. But most are good on the grounds by which they surprise you by defying the genre conventions. But if you just want to see a movie as close as humans have yet gotten to the Platonic ideal of the flesh-eating zombie flick, then you need to see Resident Evil. If you don't want to see such a film, then you're probably the kind of person who doesn't see the merits of flesh-eating zombie movies qua generis. If so, Resident Evil would likely be a concentrated dose of pure repulsiveness. Since the genre strikes you as bad, the genre's superlatively generic film will also strike you as bad.

Now, I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say that The Day After Tomorrow is the BEST disaster movie. But it's a really good disaster movie. Only The Poseidon Adventure keeps me from nominating it as the best disaster movie ever, and that's not a fair comparison. Yes, there's the obligatory marital difficulty (ever notice that young lovers meet in action movies, old couples fight against the backdrop of apocalypse)? But they keep it to a refreshing minimum - just enough to keep people who can't stomach a pure dollop of unleavened disaster in the theaters. It may not be the Law and Order of disaster movies (but how great it would it be to have a definitive Law and Order version of every major film genre?), but it's about as close as you can hope for a major Hollywood film to get. Drain it of any more sap, and you'd probably lose the necessary special-effects funding.

All in all, I enjoyed it immensely. I have a weakness for disaster movies. I doubt everyone else does. If you can stomach the death of millions as a plot device in a story about the estrangement between father and son then this is your film! Flash-frozen fun for the whole family!

If you don't like disaster movies, this probably isn't gonna' be your cup of tea. It's definitely NOT one of those movies where disaster strikes but, miraculously, nobody gets hurt.

Sunday, May 30, 2004

Happy Memorial Day

The speech below is reproduced in full from the original located here. I've done some highlighting of big points and criticial points with an eye to encouraging "skimmers" to read the full address... I disagree with Foraker on some points closer to his own time, but think we need to extend the charity of 100 years when considering his perspective.

ADDRESS OF SENATOR FORAKER AT ARLINGTON, MEMORIAL DAY, MAY 30, 1905



Fellow Comrades, Ladies and Gentlemen:
This day belongs to our soldier dead; not of one war, but of all our wars; and particularly here, in this cemetery, where on these shafts and stones we read names that illumine so many periods of our history.

But while it belongs to all who have at any time or place upheld the flag on land or on sea, yet it had its origin in the sorrow and gratitude that filled the heart of the Nation, as it emerged from the Civil War, stricken with grief, but crowned with glorious triumph.

For these reasons it is no disparagement of others to speak here to-day chiefly of that conflict; its character and results.

We have reached the time when this can be done dispassionately.

As the traveler sailing away from the land sees the shore, the trees, the houses, and the hills receding, blending and disappearing until only the mountain peaks are longer visible, so have the details and minor features of that great struggle blended and faded out of sight, leaving, as we look back to it across the forty years that have since elapsed, only those strong and commanding facts that have taken permament places in history.

We no longer see regiments, brigades, divisions, corps, or even separate armies, but only one mighty and invincible host, wearing the blue and relentlessly pressing on and on, and ever onward, through success and adversity alike, from battlefield to battlefield, until, with waving flags, flashing sabres and gleaming bayonets, they marched home flushed with final victory.

It would be interesting and inspiring to recall that time and review in detail those days of sacrifice, of hardship, of battle, of death, of heroism, of patriotic devotion, of thrilling triumph; and here in this presence there comes an almost irresistible impulse to do so. But all that would be only repeating familiar history.

I shall, therefore, say but little in an abstract way of our heroes and their deeds of daring, that I may speak more fully of their great work.

As we behold the people of this land to-day all at peace, all prosperous, all happy, all imbued with love for our flag and our Government, it seems almost incredible that so recently we should or could have been distracted and brought to the very brink of destruction by one of the most ruthless wars of modern times.

It seems so strange and unnatural that we instinctively inquire, what was it all about? And what has happened that those who were at fatal war with each other should so soon become friends and be bound together in common interest and common aspirations.

It is unnecessary to trace the development or discuss the respective merits of the differences that made our country sectional and almost destroyed it. It is sufficient to recall the fact that, plainly stated, we had two questions about which we differed. One a moral question, and the other a legal question; one slavery, and the other secession; one appealing to the conscience and the other to the Constitution.

Both demanded settlement, but we strove to confine the war to the settlement of only one. Even Abraham Lincoln said he would save the Union with slavery if he could; without slavery if he must.

But on that basis we did not make much progress. So long as the war meant no more than whether a State had a right under the Constitution to secede from the Union and thus break up and destroy it, we did not get along very well.

Manassas, Balls Bluff, and other defeats and humiliations, one after another, overtook us, with only enough of success and victory interspersed to keep us from becoming utterly discouraged and abandoning the field.

Finally Lincoln saw, as in due time most men saw, that if the Union armies were to be successful the Union cause must be based on something broader and more important than a cold legal proposition, important as that might be and was.

Our fathers of the Revolution commenced their struggle merely to redress grievances and enlarged their purpose to include and secure independence only when more than a year after Lexington and Concord they learned the necessity for a more inspiriting cause.

In the same manner we learned and progressed. Not until after Antietam did the Nation see, appreciate and rise to its opportunity. Then it was the war for the preservation of the Union was placed on a basis that appealed to the moral sentiment of the people by the declaration that the bond should go free, thus striking at the root of all our differences and making it possible to conquer a lasting peace and establish a durable Union. From that moment the Union cause had a new strength and the Union soldier a new life. He marched with a firmer tread and held his musket with a more determined grasp. He felt that he was on God's side of the great contest, and that if he should be called upon to make the highest sacrifice it would at least not be made in vain.

It was a long, hard struggle. It cost hundreds of thousands of lives and hundreds of millions of treasure. It filled the land with mourning and piled up colossal burdens of debt, not only to creditors who took our securities, but to the pensioners who constitute the Nation's roll of honor.

It was a tremendous price to pay, greater than any language can adequately portray; but so too was the reward that followed.

When the smoke of battle cleared away it could be seen that not only was slavery gone forever, but that some things had been settled that it was of transcendant importance to have settled. In the first place, it was made plain that there was a right and a wrong side to the great controversy that had been so long in progress, and that the right side had triumphed and been vindicated. And that is as true to-day, and will be forever, as it was then. The fact that those who fought against the Government fought bravely and gallantly, and believed that they were right, does not change the fact that they were nevertheless in the wrong, and that their defeat was a blessing from them as well as for us and all concerned.

It was also settled that American heroism and valor were the same no matter under which flag displayed, for neither side could justly charge the other with any lack of these high qualities of vigorous manhood; and in this fact, that cost us so much at that time, was another blessing; for since then there has been profound mutual respect, where before there was so much lack of it as to make impossible any true feeling of real homogeneity.

It furthermore settled for all time to come that this is a Nation, not only in the sense that the Constitution is our supreme law, binding the States together in perpetual union, but also in the sense that our Government is invested with all the powers that properly belong to sovereignty.

If nothing more had been accomplished the victory would have been worth more than all it cost, but its value is to be measured, not alone by what it secured, but also by what it prevented.

Defeat of the Union cause would have meant, not only two governments, but general disintegration, with corresponding sacrifice of that power, prosperity, prestige and greatness that a common country, a common flag, a common interest and a common destiny have brought us.

We know what the terms of peace were as Grant dictated them; but who can tell what they would have been had they been prescribed by Lee?

Where would he have run the boundary lines? How many States would have gone with the Southern Confederacy? and who would have stayed the spread of slavery? How many States would have remained to constitute the Union, if any at all? And how long would it have been until other secessions would have occurred? Who would have assumed the burdens of the public debt, and whose soldiers would have been pensioned? and who would have paid that obligation?

What indemnity would the South have exacted? and what kind of guarantees would she have imposed for the safety of her institutions and the preservation of her domination?

There is no end to the reasonable speculation that may be fairly indulged as to the ruinous consequences that would have followed if the result had been reversed.

In one sense such speculation may be idle, but not until we thus attempt to conjecture can we form any measure of the debt of gratitude we owe to the brave men whom we are here to honor.

But they accomplished more still; as already indicated, they not only prevented all the disasters suggested, and achieved for us the blessings of an indissoluble Union and universal freedom, but they freed us from the paralysis of the doctrines of States rights and strict construction, by which the power of the Federal Government was minimized to the point of helplessness to even save our national life, and gave it in turn that vitality, vigor and scope which belong to full national sovereignty. They made a reality of the belief in that respect of Alexander Hamilton and John Marshall, for, since Appomattox, what they taught has been fundamental truth, and we have been developing our constitutional powers until at last all recognize that our Government is as completely sovereign as any other, and that what others can do we can do, for we are equal in the family of nations to the strongest and the greatest.

Thus it was that we were able to intervene in Cuba and take there all the steps necessary to establish an independent government for another people; and by the same token we had the power, when necessity seemed to call for its exercise, to acquire our insular possessions, and, without incorporating them into the Union, hold them as dependencies to be governed by forms and laws and institutions suited to their conditions and requirements. The time was when the power to build the national road from Maryland to Ohio was challenged, but to-day no one doubts our power to construct a great international highway uniting the oceans and accommodating the commerce of the world.

And so might be specified a great chapter of achievements, both at home and abroad, of which all Americans are justly proud, for which it was denied that our Government had the requisite power until after these men fought and won.

With the Union preserved, slavery abolished, the Constitution amended, our finances rehabilitated, and this national idea fully developed and firmly established, our country entered upon a career of such unprecedented growth of strength and wealth and achievement that the spirit of sectionalism and the animosities of war have been literally drowned out by the ever-rising flood of a common pride in the greatness of a common country.

A striking evidence of this era of peace and good will was furnished when at the last session of the 58th Congress a joint resolution, authorizing the return to their respective States of the Confederate battle-flags, was passed by both Houses without debate and without a dissenting vote. The significance of this action was emphasized by the fact that there was a large Republican majority in each House, nearly all of whom were from the Northern and Union States, and among them many who had served in the Union Army, while the author of the resolution was a Democrat and an ex-Confederate soldier from Virginia. It was further emphasized by the fact that when eighteen years ago an executive order was issued, directing similar action, there was a protest against it so strong and determined in character that the order was reconsidered and revoked. It is only fair to say, however, that that opposition was due largely to the fact there was then no law to authorize such an order and no circumstances to justify it as an executive act, and because the President, who made the order, had not sustained such a relation to the army that captured the flags as justified him in taking any unauthorized liberties with them.

Had the matter been presented to Congress then as it was later, it might not have been favorably considered, for it is probable that public opinion was not at that time ready to sanction such action, but undoubtedly the subject would have been regarded very differently and the disposition of it, whatever that disposition might have been, would have been unattended with any outburst of sectional spirit, because all would have recognized the right and competency of the Congress to deal with the subject as it saw fit, and because there never was in the hearts of the Union soldiers any hatred or ill will toward the men against whom they fought.

They did not fight the men of the South because they hated or despised them, or because they wanted to destroy them or their country, or because they wanted to subjugate or even humiliate them, but rather only because they loved them too much to allow them to separate from us and become a hostile people. They wanted them to remain in the Union where they belonged, because of what they could do for us and what we could do for them, in making this the freest and the greatest country of all the earth, and because of the ruin to both sections and the injury to the cause of free popular government that would necessarily have followed their success. While they were uncompromisingly hostile to the cause they represented and were determined to overthrow and destroy it, yet for the men who represented that cause there never was a moment, even in the darkest days of the struggle, when they did not have for them personally a friendly regard and admiration that made base malice an utter impossibility.

This was impressively manifested by General Grant when in the very moment of his greatest triumph he told General Lee to have his men "keep their horses and take them home with them because they would need them to do the spring plowing with."

With these simple words he invited the whole country, victors and vanquished alike, to turn at once from war to peace--a sentiment that was shared by every true soldier of his command.

With human nature as it is it was not possible to immediately have anything like general accord with respect to even purely American questions. But it was only a short step from the state of mind indicated, if taken in a way and in a spirit that manifested proper regard for the patriotic sentiment of the country, to the state of mind that found expression in the joint resolution adopted by the Congress.

The Spanish-American war was attended with many good results, but one of the best was the impetus it gave to the restoration of cordial relations and the spirit of union and Americanism throughout the country. It gave the young men of the South an opportunity to put on the blue and show their loyalty and devotion to the flag, and to win, as they did, a heroic share of the glory and greatness that were added to the Republic; while their representatives in public life distinguished themselves by the conspicuous and patriotic character of their utterances and services. What has followed is but the natural result, and every survivor of the Union Army should be profoundly thankful that his life has been spared to see such a complete vindication of all that for which he contended.

We are not only again one people, in the sense that we are again all Americans, but even party rancor and acrimony have largely passed away.

In the nature of things this cannot always continue. Men will differ about important matters, and the right of great problems will not always be so plain as it now appears to have been with respect to the great problems that have been solved; but it is not likely that we are to have any new questions that will draw lines between the States and set one part of the country over against the other in even political array, much less in military conflict.

A last remnant of sectional difference yet remains with respect to the RACE PROBLEM but that has been finally dealt with, so far as national legislation is concerned. [Geoff- I have to intervene here to voice my dismay that 100 years later this division REMAINS UNRESOLVED]

Time, patience, patriotism and the education of experience may be necessary to practically, and in reality, secure to the black man, everywhere, all his legal rights and privileges, but his mental and moral growth give the highest assurance that he will eventually vindicate the statesmanship that made him a freeman and a citizen of the Republic; while his loyalty and heroism as shown in every war in which we have allowed him to participate will win for him a triumph over all the prejudices that stand between him and the door of hope.

In this cemetery lie hundreds of his race who gallantly wore the uniform, as thousands are gallantly wearing it to-day, but nowhere, in all this broad land, can a single one be found, among either the living or dead, who ever raised his hand against our flag.

It is not possible that in this country where there is such generous recognition of human rights such a race can fail to achieve success.

No man can do, or is doing, so much to accomplish this as the black man himself. Education, industry and frugality, with his other good qualities, will more and more command respect and secure advancement. His progress since emancipation has been phenomenal, and under all the circumstances he may well take courage for the future; while every comrade of the Union Army may be assured that what he did for that people was not done in vain.

We have other questions, and many of them, and always will have, for we are an active, energetic, progressive people, ever pressing forward to the accomplishment of some great purpose; but whether they are the labor questions the trust questions, the control of corporations, the revision of our industrial policies, or something else, our differences with respect to them are not likely to be affected by State lines, and probably not seriously by party lines, as we have heretofore known them, for the indications are that as to all these subjects a strong spirit of Americanism will determine what shall be done.

This is the most hopeful sign of the day.

Where genuine Americanism prevails there cannot be danger of any very widespread of populism, communism, anarchism, or any other heresy that would undermine and overthrow our institutions. Coupled with the saving common sense of the American people, which has never yet failed us, this national spirit is at once our greatest shield from harm and our greatest incentive to the highest and noblest endeavor.

It is no exaggeration, but only the sober truth, to say that we were never so strong, never so prosperous, never so contented, never so respected, never so powerful to do good in the world, and never doing so much good, either at home or abroad, as we are to-day. And great as is the present, greater by far, exceeding all power of description, is the career that lies before us.

The men of other wars showed bravery, heroism and capacity for great deeds, and all added glory to our flag, honor to our name and renown to our arms, but no men since our independence was established have done so much for the American people as the men of the Union Army. They were mere boys, most of them yet in their teens, and all of the more than two millions who were enlisted, except less than 50,000, were under twenty-five years of age. But, measured by their work and its far-reaching consequences, they belong among the truly great men of history.

Through good report and bad, victory and defeat, summer and winter, sunshine and storm, they unflinchingly and uncomplainingly met every requirement of the great task that fell upon them. No hardship was too severe for them to undergo, no loss was too heavy for them to bear, no sacrifice to comfort, or blood, or life was too great for them to make. They laid all unsparingly upon their country's altar, and behold the result--this mighty Nation, so full of honour and so full of promise. Only the shortcomings of ourselves, or of those who are to come after us can bring their work to naught. Our presence here to-day is our pledge that it shall not fail through fault of ours, for we have come, not only to strew flowers on their graves, recount their deeds, extol their virtues, and pay tribute to their memory, but also that we may study the lessons they taught, and by these sacred and beautiful ceremonies consecrate ourselves anew to the great duty of perpetuating what they preserved. May God give us wisdom and courage to do our duty as well as they did theirs. If so, the Union they saved and the institutions they perfected will endure for long ages to come, and with passing years bear ever-increasing blessings to humanity.

Saturday, May 29, 2004

I Can't Stand Lou Dobbs

He may be a bloodless demogogue... but he's a demogogue nonetheless.

It's not that an unapologetic bias is a bad thing. But the man is just as obviously using his platform on CNN to urge a political movement onwards as Bill O'Reilly, but doesn't seem to get half so much as notice as such. As a newsman, one of his primary efforts of the moment is to persuade Americans to take a particular stance on a current political issue. I can't say this is a bad thing.

But to the extent that he goes on night after night and tries to mislead Americans on an important topic, he's as much a nuisance as anyone else. His voice is certainly louder than most print op/ed columnists - and since the majority of Republican commentators couldn't defend the case for liberalisation of trade against a Marxist with a butterknife - largely unanswered...

My Head Hurts

George Bush, May 28, 2004:
I told the Prime Minister that our government and our coalition will transfer full sovereignty, complete and full sovereignty to an Iraqi government that will be picked by Mr. Brahimi of the United Nations.

The Real World, May 28, 2004:
U.N. spokesman Fred Eckhard said the United Nations had not expected the Governing Council to make the announcement, "but the Iraqis seem to agree on this candidate," he said. "And if they do, Mr. Brahimi is ready to work with this candidate. If this is the Iraqi way, he's ready to go with it and work with it and try to complete the process by the end of the month."

What kind of odds do you want to give me that I'll see a quote from George W. Bush before June 1 referring to Allawi as "the U.N.'s choice."

Darfur

I couldn't agree more with Kristoff.

Of the ongoing Darfur crisis in Sudan:


Yet while Mr. Bush has done far too little, he has at least issued a written statement, sent aides to speak forcefully at the U.N. and raised the matter with Sudan's leaders. That's more than the Europeans or the U.N. has done. Where are Tony Blair and Jacques Chirac? Where are African leaders, like Nelson Mandela? Why isn't John Kerry speaking out forcefully? And why are ordinary Americans silent?

Islamic leaders abroad have been particularly shameful in standing with the Sudanese government oppressors rather than with the Muslim victims in Darfur. Do they care about dead Muslims only when the killers are Israelis or Americans?

I've already noted that for all our failure to achieve to the fullest realization of our ideals - we are often still the nation most willing to consistently apply them.

"If America and Americans were silent about American shortcomings and those of others, who else would speak up and how forcefully?"

I can't say that Kristoff is being entirely fair in his characterization of global response to date. But I share his dismay, and I hope that we can find our collective voice. We needn't invade (and practically, we simply can't) but there is yet more we can do. It's impossible to be optimistic about our chances of having an actual impact, whatever our efforts. But if our actions elicit another angry editorial from Xinhua we can at least consider them a limited success...

My Own Guess

Last horse-race post until next Friday! I swear it!

I just realized that throughout this blog I've declared myself a forecaster and have failed to provide an actual forecast. I predict that Kerry will win in 2004. I think he will win with 311 Electoral Votes to George W. Bush's 227.

Below are my predicted outcomes. This represents my best guess from the current day (5/29/04). If the evidence moves decisively against my prediction, I plan to revise it (but with a big ding to my self-credibility). On the map below states in blue represent easy Kerry states. States in red denote easy Bush states. Green states represent states that I expect to be close, but go to Kerry. Yellow states represent states I expect to be close, but ultimately go to Bush.

Geoff's Predictions


Guaranteed Kerry - 190; Likely Kerry - 121


Guaranteed Bush - 190; Likely Bush - 37


Friday, May 28, 2004

Pro Noggins Prognosticate

Reader "Bret" provides an extended and insightful reply to my post immediately below (which was in turn a reply to him). Since he's threatening to start his own blog, I'll make this my last direct front-page response. But his points are so well-stated and the comments threads are so obscure, that I think it merits a direct response.

First, he notes that a "bellwether" needs to be predictive, not reactive, and thus finds fault with my definition of Tradesports as a "bellwether." It is important to bear in mind when considering polls or bets or what-have-you, that such indicators represent the state of things at present, and are not explicit predictions of the future. As someone trying to make a forecast, polls or futures prices are useful as a basis of present information upon which to build a prediction.

I don't mean to impute this view to "Bret", but I have often heard the complaint that "such-and-such a poll indicated that Candidate X would win, but instead he lost." This can certainly be frustrating, but it need never be attributable to a flaw in the poll. The poll allegedly represents the outcome of an hypothetical election held at the time of the poll - NOT an election held at any specified future date. The measure of a poll's worth is not whether it accurately captures the final result of an election, but whether it accurately describes the present intentions of the electorate. It's always possible for 30% of persons to change their mind overnight. Should such a thing happen, you would expect a poll, even one conducted a day before the election to be wildly off-the-mark. If, on Nov. 4th, 30% of the electorate was leaning towards Bush, then on Nov. 5th, that 30% changed their minds and voted Kerry, a poll which anticipated the swing would misrepresent the nation polled before the election.

So, it would be unwise to take any given poll as an prediction that a candidate will win. It can only indicate that one candidate is leading, and the other trailing. "Bret" points out that Tradesports, after Iowa, saw a crash in Dean's "share-price." Since this plunge was a reaction to Dean's defeat in Iowa, rather than an anticipation of it, he finds "As a bellwether, it seems pretty ineffective." But bear in mind, there is not yet a nominee for the Democratic Presidential candidate! We're still months away from the actual nomination, but the odds on Kerry are effectively 100, and the odds on Dean effectively 0. So, as an indicator, it's actually doing well! Of course, an idiot could do so well. My point is NOT that the market is any more prescient than any given individual. My point is that the market cautiously but rapidly prices in ALL relevant criteria and thus anticipates the consensus prediction NOT the final outcome.

By contrast, any given poll only constitutes ONE criterion. If a series of polls alternate between a Bush lead and a Kerry lead, then a cautious trader would hold onto the Bush stock because the advantage of incumbency would give Bush a slight edge (hence, most of the swing states trading just above 50). If a drop appears to be temporary, then there's a speculative incentive to buy up the plummeting shares on the anticipation that they can be sold on their way back up. Thus, a stock price won't crater unless the complete odds are starting to move decisively.

"Bret" then writes:

What I am curious about is whether this market of limited (and I was speculating, non-uniform "gamblers") might be favoring Bush in an inefficient way that we could take advantage of, i.e. the market doesn't trust Zogby, because he's considered too liberal, but actually he's a leading indicator, and other polls will catch up to him and then tradesports will be incorporate this knowledge later.

Now, this is certainly possible. Zogby is considered liberal, and his polls tend to skew ludicrously leftwards (Bush down by five IN NEVADA?!?!?!) And of course it's possible that Zogby will be right. But Zogby is a pollster, and if you've read his forecast you find that he limits the universe of data he draws upon to his own poll results. What's more, he makes the prediction on May 10, MONTHS before the election. Presumably, the "bungee jump" isn't much of a dare if he can change his forecast in September. So, Zogby has arbitrarily limited the input of his forecast. By way of contrast, Tradesports remains free to incorporate Zogby's prediction, Zogby's polls, and the far more ambivalent polls of groups like the ARG, SurveyUSA, and Rasmussen, and to factor in a conservative "incumbency bias." This means that Tradesports is an "indicator" because it is reflective, not because it is predictive.

So, as a prognosticator myself, Tradesports makes a nice fact-checker. If a state drops below 50% on the market, that indicates a high likelihood that the state is presently strongly pro-Kerry. A present state of strong pro-Kerry-hood is the best indicator available of the future electoral outcome.

It pays to watch the Tradesports prices not because they anticipate the election to come, but because they reflect most conservatively the current state of affairs. Since the current state of affairs is the best indicator of the final outcome, Tradesports is indeed (possibly) the best indicator available.

On Maps of Expectation

Reader, "Bret" writes of my TradeSports tracking, "I haven't see you do an Zogby vs. Tradesports analysis where you figure out where the best bets are (where the gaps are largest) and where it would be possible to make bank on the clearly biased leanings of this "market." Tradesports is mostly jocks and libertarians, just waiting to be exploited.".

Well, Bret. Let's first state that the difference between Zogby and the "libertarians" betting on Tradesports is that the Libertarians will lose money if they're wrong (and I expect some will indeed lose money). Zogby, on the other hand, seems to keep earning his paycheck despite how wildly inaccurate his polls so frequently are...

That being said, I offer you Zogby's Predictions for the 2004 election.

Zogby Predictions


Kerry - 226; Bush - 176; Swing - 136




Is that wildly optimistic? Sort of...

I mean, I'll freely concede that Arizona and Nevada are POSSIBILITIES (but not Colorado)... but they're really long-shots. What's interesting though is that Kerry can win the election with the electoral map of 2000 plus Ohio. It's likely that he'll pick up New Hampshire besides, and he may very likely get Florida. The only states to have eroded to a point worth worrying about are Oregon and Iowa, and together they're still not worth as much as Ohio is. I privately suspect Delaware is in play, but it's hardly significant...

As for my rationale for highlighting changes in the Tradesports map and not the Zogby's...

well...

Zogby's predictions are finite. They aren't moving anymore. Meanwhile, Tradesports changes from week to week... considering how retroactive the Tradesports market tends to be...(example below) it's a far more reliable bellwether than Zogby's fantasies...

Dean's Market Value


Response to Urquhart

Urquhart writes: "Why is the fact that Janklow is a Republican relevant?"

It's not specifically relevant. I'd find it as outrageous were it a Democrat. I do feel that "in general" (and bear in mind, I lived with Gov. Gray Davis and his inexcusable refusal to issue paroles*, so I know it's a bipartisan disease) the toughening of sentencing standards is a Republican issue. Though many Democrats are equally strict, it is one issue that has been "driven" by conservatives. Many Democrats, like Davis, take insanely harsh positions on "law-and-order" issues to compensate for a perceived "softness" that is injustifiable from a purely prescriptive position (part of the reason why Davis never advocated the formal abolition of the parole system, though he instituted a de facto abolition)...

If Bill Janklow was equally generous in granting pardons to repentant black men, then I'll give him credit for ideological consistency (though I'm not sure remorse alone, or promises not to relapse should be sufficient legal conditions). So, I must confess that Janklow might NOT be a "law-and-order" Republican (he certainly showed enough disdain for the law to make such a position ludicrously hypocritical).

I would still argue that no politician should advocate stricter enforcement of the law unless they are prepared to see that law equally applied to ALL violators. If a law is so harsh that a policy-maker feels compelled to waive its operation in the case of their own loved ones, then that law should not be applied as a general rule at all. If "sorry" is good enough, then everyone should be allowed to say they're "sorry." If it isn't good enough, then it isn't good enough.

CORRECTION: I originally stated "pardons" where I meant to state "parole." Davis had a policy of uniformly denying all parole requests which was far more draconian than a mere "no-pardon-policy."

An Outrage

Now that former South Dakota governor Bill Janklow is out of prison for manslaughter, several of his confidential records from his governorship have been made available to the public.


The pardons made public on Thursday include Janklow's 2002 pardon of William Gordon Haugen II, the husband of Janklow's daughter, Shonna. The pardon covered drunken driving convictions in 1983 and in 1997, and a 1993 conviction for marijuana possession.

Now, why is this such an outrage? Why should it matter that the son-in-law of a prominent Republican politician should be allowed to walk away, recrimination free, from his legally soiled past? Listen to Janklow's defense of this action:

"My son-in-law did things when he was a younger person that he paid for," Janklow told the Associated Press. "He came to me and asked if I would clean things up because he wanted to go to law school. I said, 'Is this all behind you?' and he said, 'So help me, God, it's behind me.' I said, 'Are you ever going to embarrass me or anybody else?' He said, 'Never,' and so I did it, and he's just finished his first year in law school and is a very good student."

Which is to say, yet again - Sorry is never good enough - unless you happen to be a sorry, white, well-connected Republican. Mr. Haugen is eligible for financial aid in law school that he would have otherwise been denied. He can vote in seven states that would have disenfranchised him. The tighter we draw the law, and make no mistake - we have been tightening it, the more arbitrary we make its operations, as those who control the levers of law blanche at seeing it applied to themselves and their own...

Friday Morning Chances

More from the gamblers...

Bush (>60%) - 227 EV; Bush (50-60%) - 56 EV


Kerry (<40%) - 210; Kerry(40-50%) - 45





The only major change has been a drop in confidence in Pennsylvania. Last week it stood at 59.9, it has since dropped to 49. An attempt to show the chart is below:

Pennsylvania



Thursday, May 27, 2004

The Day After Terror

24 hours ago, I took a look at the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security websites.

On the DOJ website, over a day after Ashcroft's incendiary warning of known terrorists infiltrating the United States, the website remains quite calm. In fact, I can find no explicit reference to that warning on the Department's front page. The last item filed under the prominent section "Attorney General's Remarks" is dated 5/24, covers domestic crime, and reads:


Together, America’s law enforcement community is protecting homes, saving lives, and winning America’s fight against crime. Hard-core criminals are paying unprecedented penalties, and law-abiding Americans are enjoying newfound safety. We are driving down crime by enhancing cooperation, using effective, tough tools against criminals, and ensuring they do hard time. Behind these statistics are innocent men, women and children who are free from crime, victimization, and fear. I thank the police officers, sheriffs, troopers, agents, and first responders who answer the call to protect and defend America every day with courage, determination, and valor.


The DHS site is even more outdated. It is fronting a May 21 address by Tom Ridge which emphasizes the need for vigilance but makes no assertion of imminent peril.

Leaving aside the question of why the color code hasn't been elevated...

If this information is of such critical importance to the nation right now, why isn't the government using its national-security communication organs to relay the message?

As far as I can tell there are two likely explanations.

The first is the one you're hearing about - that John Ashcroft unilaterally decided to intervene in the polls. I don't want to be a cynic. I really have a hard time buying that argument. Presumably, he's not going to warn us about terrorists unless he means it... you don't just make up terrorist attacks off the top of your head.

But then I find that the second explanation is that there is no communicative follow-through below the Cabinet level. Ashcroft is expressing a general warning to the people and yet the websites of DOJ and DHS are not doing anything to relay that warning, nor to clarify it...

So, either there is no threat. Or there is, and there is manifestly inadequate action.

Wednesday, May 26, 2004

Views of the News

Having trouble keeping track of all the polls? Did Bush's popularity just crash below 50% for the first time? Or is it almost about to break into the thirties? Hard to say! Everyone does it differently...

But as long as I'm obssessively tracking this stuff, I might as well share... All the polls in perspective... (job approval only)



Instant Obsolescence

Sigh... A mere two hours after the post below, and Kaus adopts my Point-of-View. It's certainly a relief that I can scientifically prove nobody reads my site... otherwise I might think I'd been co-opted!

Tuesday, May 25, 2004

The Reluctant Optimist

Hey, it kills me to think that Kerry's going to win the election in 2004. Well, except for the part of that belief which entails the defeat of Bush. I rather like that part, and can stomach all forms of later gastrointestinal distress just to savor it for a moment...

So sign me up in the category of "grin-and-bear-it" liberals who'd rather... well, let's not go on with it. I'm an ideologue and Kerry's a man. So, 'nuff said. He sucks. I can't stand John F. Kerry.

However, the stars appear to be aligning decisively in Kerry's favor. But off in the land of the Neo-that-May-Still-Speak-Its-Name, The Knight So Woefully Counterfeit has already been unhorsed...

Apparently believing that storm clouds must find their girth, there is no silver lining that Mickey Kaus is prepared to leave unslashed. In his "Dem Panic Watch" feature, Kaus regularly holds up the lack of traction that John Kerry is getting against Bush in head-to-head polls as evidence that the candidate is clearly failing to exploit the current political climate. While I'm sympathetic towards the argument... especially as a paranoiac who's greatest paranoia is defeat by his inner-paranoiac... (How dare I expect that the facts accord with my own desires?)... still, I gotta' say that Kaus is stretching (but someone's gotta' do it!).

First, when weighing Kaus' observations, I think it is useful to juxtapose them with the insights of William Saletan from September of 2003. In an article that was right-on in everything but tone, Saletan observed that Kerry's signature campaign strategy is to make of himself "a thin target."

At this stage in the campaign, the limelight is John Kerry's enemy. He's ugly. He's wooden. His speech is denser than a Christmas fruitcake. Given how manifestly unappealing John Kerry is it would be a disastrous campaign move to pull ahead early. The greater the lead, the greater the impetus to second-guess and scrutinize him. If he engaged the substance of the current political debate, rather than running a series of fluff-bio ads on cable news outlets... he'd make headlines and show up in news segments and alienate voters who actually hold positions.

John Kerry is protecting his anonymity. Why? Because, news can break too late... a candidate as unlikeable as Kerry doesn't WANT to be compared to a candidate as incompetent as George W. Bush. The man is running on a record which is certifiably worse than any 20th century president. He may beat Johnson in war, but not on the economy. He may beat Hoover on the economy, but not in questions of war and peace. Have you noticed the way that Bush's popularity plummets after he gives speeches? Nothing will serve him better than to turn his embarrasing monologues into a debate. Then he'll at least get the "chimp-in-a-suit" pity response... Kerry's best bet is to keep it quiet, and ironically to allow his opponent to define him.

If the Republicans have a weakness, it's to go too far. Though they tarred Gore with the image of a serial prevaricator, they did so in part by Gore's attempts to deny the proof! Since his ears were steaming, and where there's smoke... Gore undid himself. But if Kerry keeps his visibility to a minimum, while his opponent piles on with negative advertising, then the first impression of Kerry that voters will have will be based upon advertisings which are long on abstraction and short on man. Let the Republicans whip up a bogeyman of Dukakis-era liberalism run amok. When Kerry emerges into the spotlight in August, after the conventions, as a war hero with a Presidential pomposity (and hopefully measured control over his verbal effluence) and a certain gravitas... it'll be a downright relief. If anything, keeping quiet now while Bush goes on an early attack (and continues to sabotage the case in his own favor) will define expectations downward and bestow upon Kerry the Mediocrity a luminary appearance completely out-of-keeping with the tarnished star we of the obsessive-politic-watching have come to know and detest.

So, I'm not a fan of Kerry. But I'm expecting that, barring any unexpected major new developments, Kerry will win handily in November... And much to Mr. Kaus' chagrin, the causes will likely be exactly the same ones that he currently sees as Kerry's greatest liabilities...

Blog Back Begins

I can't believe I'm doing this... but Andrew Sullivan gets himself a little mixed up today. He provides us with two quotes in which he can detect no substantive difference.

The first comes from British PM, Tony Blair: "our troops are [not] going to be ordered to do something that our troops don't want to do".

Sullivan disputes that this contrasts with Powell's comment on a similar topic (post-sovereignty structures of command): "U.S. forces remain under U.S. command and will do what is necessary to protect themselves."

The difference that eludes Mr. Sullivan is that in Blair's comments the Iraqis have the ability to constrain British actions, whereas in Powell's formulation, they do not. Neither Blair nor Powell give the Iraqis the power of command, but the two men differ in that Blair DOES grant them the power to countermand.

A Day Late and a Dollar Short

I've been pondering the President's speech last night. Not much I can add to the responses already out there. Of course, I'm still hoping to hear sense cross Bush's lips. But I can't pretend I expect it to ever happen.

Still, one bizarre quote:
"A new Iraq will also need a humane, well-supervised prison system. Under the dictator, prisons like Abu Ghraib were symbols of death and torture. That same prison became a symbol of disgraceful conduct by a few American troops who dishonored our country and disregarded our values. America will fund the construction of a modern, maximum security prison. When that prison is completed, detainees at Abu Ghraib will be relocated. Then, with the approval of the Iraqi government, we will demolish the Abu Ghraib prison, as a fitting symbol of Iraq's new beginning. (Applause.)"

Now, this has been picked up in a lot of ways. But lets just look over the implications of this promise, the only substantive promise to the Iraqi people, a little closer.

1) We promise you prisons. How does that work, symbolically?

2) Given that the Iraqis will be sovereign in just over 30 days, what if they don't WANT a "modern maximum security prison?" It's the kind of proclamation ("I will build a prison") you expect to hear from a state governor... it's also doesn't sit well with the claim of imminent sovereignty. Wouldn't a sovereign Iraq be in charge of building new prisons?

3) Which, of course leads us to wonder what it means that we get to transfer all the current detainees to the new prison. "Iraqis will be responsible for their own security - except security AND law and order..."

So, to recap. We need permission to destroy jails, but not to build them. We need permission to destroy jails, but not to retain control over our detainees. We will continue to house them in a jail we have built in a sovereign country we purportedly do not control...

And all of this to symbolize a new beginning fourteen months after the new beginning has begun. Wouldn't the symbolism of razing Abu Ghraib have been so much more intense back when Iraqis were first excavating their dead from the compound? Or did Bush miss that part when he decided to turn it into our primary prison complex?

On the one hand, I welcome the gradual realization that symbols matter. But the problem is that when you've polluted your symbolic vocabulary, the stain tends to travel with the signified even when you switch symbols.

Here in Oakland we got a street named East 14th. It became infamous, and after awhile, they decided to change the name to International, to improve the street's reputation. Amazingly, now it's International that has the reputation, seeing as it still runs the course of Easth 14th.

I'm not saying that we won't change our ways. I believe we will. But there's no reason to expect that building a new prison to replace Abu Ghraib will come across as a "symbolic new beginning." I think we have to do a little more leg-work first if we want to have any meaning to impart to our new symbol.

Monday, May 24, 2004

The Employment Picture

On my little mapquest below, I found this neato little toy.

Anyhow, I was kinda' shocked to see the state-by-state breakdown of unemployment shifts for the Bush Administration. This map represents the unemployment rate on January of 2001. This map shows the unemployment situation last month.

This means that over the lifetime of the Bush Administration, unemployment has DECREASED in a net total of five states (Hawaii, Wyoming, Delaware, Louisiana and Nevada). It has broken even over the lifetime of the Administration in North Dakota, South Dakota, and Montana. Unemployment has INCREASED (less people have jobs) in the remaining 42 states of the Union.

How does this compare to the Clinton terms? Well, from January of 1992 to April of 1996 unemployment rose in only five states. DC, South Dakota, Kansas, New Mexico, and Hawaii. In his second term, January of 1997 to April of 2000 unemployment only rose in TWO states (North Dakota and Nebraska). Thus, this means that in 8 years of Clintonian economics there was a net gain in the employment rate for a minimum of 45 states. In the first term of the Bush Administration there has so far been a net loss in the employment rate for 42 states.

Wowzers. I guess this is what you'd expect from a CEO President. Mass layoffs..

Sunday, May 23, 2004

Chalabi Skepticism

Saw him interviewed by Wolf Blitzer this morning. Among some of the charges flying about, is that he may have passed troop movements to Iran and even Iranian disinformation to the U.S.

All of this may prove true. But any assessment of the charges' weights should take into account this one compelling fact - he's still free.

That isn't to say that solid and irrefutable evidence against Chalabi won't emerge. And I'm not inclined to give him much credit of the doubt.

But at least for the moment, there appears a gap between the intensity of the charges and the severity of his treatment. Given that curiosity, it pays attention to follow the tactical interests of various parties in the impending development of this story...

Saturday, May 22, 2004

It's Like Riding a Bike...

How hard could it be?

Pretzels, Segways, Mountain Bikes...

sure...

But leader of the Free World? It's not like it's rocket science.

It's scary enough that people want to elect a president like themselves... Crazy though I might be, I think I'm at least saner than most in recognizing that I'm not qualified to be President.

But worse than "Everyman" - George W. Bush is "Everyman's Embarassingly Incompetent Black Sheep Relation."

Friday, May 21, 2004

Tactics of Terror

Well, it's starting to look like Al-Zarqawi wasn't the one behind the Nicholas Berg execution at all. Instead, we're looking at Saddam's fedayeen, under the direction of one of Saddam's relations.

Now, I'm not qualified to tease apart all the distinctions between Islamism, ethno-centrism, and plain-old nationalism at play in the Iraqi theater. But it seems obvious to me that one salutary benefit of the Berg killing from an enemey belligerent nationalist perspective is that it serves to unmoor sympathetic Iraqis from the American occupation. Specifically, if you were a reasonable and moderate Iraqi, the knowledge that the Berg execution has become the defining symbol of your people in American eyes could give you reasonable cause to despair of ever creating a favorable impression among Americans in general towards your country.

A small minority of Americans hate all Arabs, as Arabs and are perfectly willing to believe that Iraqis are animals. Undoubtedly, a small minority of Iraqis hate all Americans without qualifications or reservations. But a nationalist conflict doesn't need to prey upon the parochial bigotry of one side against the other. Appealing to hatred has a critical limitation. So, to make a bigoted appeal to reason you need to convince moderates that the bigotry of the other side is too widespread and intractable to make peace a possibility.

To that extent, the killers of Nicholas Berg - and the execution's coincident timing with the Abu Ghraib prison disclosures - have probably been wildly successful. It's hard to imagine a constructive dialog taking place across the burning bridge of inflammatory symbols that these atrocities have created...

A side note on the insurgency - the immediate assumption that the killing was perpetrated by Al-Qaeda-type-motivations seems to have been proven wrong. What I would hope is that the growing indistinguishability of the ideological underpinning of various "terrorist-type" assaults might cause Americans to reconsider the efficacy of our present "War on Terror." It's often been said that "terrorism is a tactic." This seems like it should be self-evidently true. The fact that it's a tactic being picked up by an ever-widening group of America's ideological opponents should give us pause. Tactics generally gain favorability because they work which would indicate that the spreading prevalence of these tactics indicate that we are rewarding the perpetrators of symbolic attacks... how else to account for the growing incidence of "terrorist-type" attacks?

The OddsMaker's Map

As promised. Here's what the bookies think of the 2004 Election. States in Red have a greater than 60% likelihood of going Republican. States in Blue have less than 40% likelihood of going Republican. Green states are Democratic leaning, but between 40-50%. States in Yellow are Republican leaning but favor Republicans with bewtween 50% and60%.

Solid Kerry - 210; Likely Kerry - 24
Solid Bush - 227; Likely Bush - 77



Friday Horse Race

As I've mentioned, I consider DC Political Report to be an endlessly wonderful repository of election info. However, like most responsible Americans, he's too unwilling to offer nakedly distortive information. You'll notice on his state-by-state poll summary that any state in which poll results indicate that the spread between candidates is within the margin of error he colors the state green rather than accrediting statistical significance to a 1-point margin. Lacking such scruples or basic respect for fact, I offer you the map as of 5/21/04. It was created using the applet available at GrayRaven:

Kerry - 245; Bush - 218; Exact Tie - 38; No Poll - 37





Now, brief discussion. The DC Political Report gives Wisconsin as a solid red while I color it solid blue. That is because there are two reports both dated 4/28, and I've decided to use the Rasmussen Reports one which gives Kerry 50% support over the Badger Report (which is U-Wisconsin) that gives Bush 50% because the reputable polling outfit (Rasmussen) strikes me as more reliable AND more plausible. Other than that, I've been scrupulously literal...

Maps indicating the TradeSports Electoral map may follow.

Thursday, May 20, 2004

What's Worse than Hypocrisy?

Incorrigibility?

From Chinese state-controlled daily, Xinhua.


Lin Bocheng, vice president of the China Foundation for Human Rights Development, noted that the United States was the only country to publish a human rights records every year to condemn orpress other countries in human rights problems.

"Its true attempts to interfere in and even to trample on humanrights and internal affairs of other countries, under the excuse of promoting 'democracy and human rights', will never be accepted by the international community," Lin said.

Feng Jiancang, director of the human rights research office with the Ministry of Justice, warned it was wasting time to reduceand weaken the negative influences of the abuse scandal via issuing the human rights record.

I'd rather have Chinese outrage over U.S. human rights abuses and U.S. outrage over Chinese human rights abuses than silence pretending to purity. You don't need to be perfect to know right from wrong. As it is, though, they prefer to whine about our hypocrisy since they can't really pretend to share our values...

It's a a scary thing in the contemplation of U.S. power. If America and Americans were silent about American shortcomings and those of others, who else would speak up and how forcefully?

Wednesday, May 19, 2004

Policy Primer

Thanks to R.Robot for pointing out the tactical potential of the Candy Bomber.

I wonder about the vocab list. Of course, I'm tempted to go with the easy-snark, and just snicker at the definition of diplomacy - "2: Tact and skill in dealing with people. 3: Wisdom in the management of public affairs." Or of intelligence - "1: The ability to understand and profit from experience".

But what's the point? Irony for the converted?

No, not today. I find myself wondering if a conservative came up with the example of relief...


relief n. 1. The easing of a burden or distress, such as pain, anxiety, or oppression. 2. Something that alleviates pain or distress. Such as public assistance, aid in time of danger


If they're not careful, the White House is going to encourage a whole new generation of entitlement-whores...

In the light-hearted spirit of children, I leave you with a game:
Which of these men is unlike the others?

More Politics

I Was Wrong

Well, I appear to be wrong about the sarin find in Baghdad. I want to grovel and beg for your forgiveness, but the Safire Example is making me question contrition... surely I need only wait a while and something vaguely fact-like will emerge to buttress all my downright ludicrous beliefs?

But in the meantime, let me just make it clear that I was wrong and facts were right.
More Politics

Tuesday, May 18, 2004

Autonomy - Curious "Existence" Of,

I have already taken autonomy to be an article of faith. Perhaps I've made a solid case for it, perhaps I have not. What I most conspicuously have failed to do is define the term in which I believe. I've called it a lot of names, but none of them very clear. "Choice." "Freedom of Will." "Liberty." These aren't easy terms. Protestants believe in predestination and the freedom of will. Catholics believe Protestants are crazy for thinking both can be true at once. The term is clearly elastic enough that it can describe at least two separate visions of human nature, and important enough that both visions stubbornly lay claim to the same term.

The concept of "Free Will" occupies contested symbolic real-estate. Very few definitions of "Free Will" allow scope for alternative definitions to be equally true. Much like God, the nature of Free Will is an intellectually polarizing concept: The concept itself precedes its definition. The greatest disputes among its proponents lies in the nature of what it is. Environmentalists are generally in substantive agreement about what "Environment" is. But Liberals are not at all in general agreement about what "Liberty" is. And liberals are only a very small subset of the group of people who believe in Free Will...

Earlier, I declared the belief in "Free Will" to be the first of the moral decisions. If this is to be a fair assertion, I must define what exactly the belief in "Free Will" entails. That's a large definition, which is preceded by a digression.

When it comes to God, I have an objective position. I believe that God does not exist. That is not the same as stating "I do not believe in God." I do believe in God. With most humans thinking about God, and most humans preoccupied with understanding God, it would be a non-sequitur to declare him "dead" or to disbelieve in his existence and his importance to human affairs. I also believe that there is an objective reality, apart from human consideration, and I believe God does not exist there. God is a thing of people needed to explain a thing among people. God is a symbol describing a crucial absence. In its formlessness, the formlessness of the void, it is something whose shape is fiercely contested precisely because it is something which is not subject to clear definition. God embodies the limits of the human experience - all that lies beyond the threshold of that which we cannot know and that which we cannot bear. God is the frontier of the mind.

"Free Will" is a similar phenomenon. Rather than expressing a concrete thing, it seeks to articulate an ephemera - one of those shadowy things we know of ourselves and trust with a certain faith exists in a similar form in others. Because our definition of autonomy sets up the basis of our ethical standards, the nature of choice becomes an imperative definition. If we are to establish that others should behave ethically, whether moral or not (and later we shall), then we need to assess realistically the limits of human capacity for choice. We cannot ask of humans to manifest more than the limits of their nature. Yet, we cannot afford to ask less than those limits of our fellow men. If God is the symbol which describes all that lies outside of our influence, outside of our will, and outside of our choice - then autonomy is it's mirror opposite. It is no accident that religion cedes Free Will to the actions of man. "Free Will" is all that we COULD DO - a class of actions far larger than the sum of all that we WILL DO.

This is why its definition is so hotly contested. If freedom of will is sufficiently constricted, that constriction can justify a range of behaviors that most humans would find unconscionable. If the conecpt is sufficiently expanded, it can excuse apathy towards natural conditions that would otherwise be inexcusable. If we take "free will" to be a social thing, yet no less true therefore, we find that the misdefinition of it may lead otherwise morally sound individuals into error.

We have to get it right, even in full knowledge of the high probability that we will get it wrong. It's an imperative.

Oddly Enough

So, I'm a bit of a junkie for reading the tea leaves of 2004. In fact... I have a spreadsheet ... which I use to track movements in the state-by-state prospects for November. For a free digest of state-by-state polls, I can't recommend anything more strongly than this. Right now it looks like Wisconsin is solidly red, so we can't say all polls consolidated on the site are equally plausible... but the most heartening indicator is the suggestion that Ohio and Pennsylvania, and maybe even Florida, might be tipping decisively blue...

However, the other site that interests me is an online gambling site called Tradesports which sells futures on various outcomes, including contracts for every state in the Union going Bush or Kerry. It's kinda' like the free-market version of DARPA's much derided website... you can even bet on terrorism futures...

So, anyhow, I keep track of movements in the tradesports prices, so I might as well update this each week so you don't have to.

The trend to date has been heartening for Bush-haters, as many states have shot downwards to lifetime lows. But the electoral college trend still favors Bush strongly, overall. If one were to assume that every state where Bush is given greater than 50% on futures prices goes Red, and the rest blue, then Bush would presently win the electoral college by 304-234. Swing states where Bush is getting more than 50% odds but lower than 60% would be New Hampshire (59%, 4EV), New Mexico (57%, 5EV), Ohio (53%, 20EV), and Pennsylvania (58.5%, 21EV). Swing states for Kerry (between 40%-50%) would be Iowa (42%, 7EV), Oregon (43%, 7EV), and Wisconsin (45%, 10EV).

If you summed all those probabilities (giving you a total score of 50*100=5000 points), then Bush scores 3004.5 - 2095.5. This is obviously a distorted statistic, as Bush tends to attract high margins of support in a lot of smaller states, giving him a higher "popularity index" than would be reflected in the electoral college. But the aggregate figure is useful for watching confidence level in solid Bush states (or solid Kerry states, for that matter) plummet. Ohio today trades at 53, but enjoyed a lifetime high of 80. West Virginia had a lifetime low of 49, but today trades at 67. Presumably, if one sees a sharp spike in values among "Blue States" or a sharp plummet in values among "Red States", this would indicate a widespread erosion of confidence that would appear in the aggregate figure.

We'll see. For the most part, futures markets seem to be backward-looking (which is ironic). But it'll be interesting to see how well the market prices the ultimate electoral outcome. A brief look at Dean's futures past shows that speculators may not be the best prognosticators after all...

So, a curiosity for those of us who are made curious by these sorts of things...

More Politics

Monday, May 17, 2004

Sarin-ade

OK. So, I've been looking at the transcript in which Brig. Gen. Kimmett announces the finding of the sarin bomb in Baghdad. You can read it here. Now, there are two oddities to note here.

The first is that the munitions are discovered several days ago, yet the news only breaks one day AFTER Colin Powell makes big WMD-questioning headlines.


Q So it's less effective, then. I mean --

GEN. KIMMITT: It's ineffective.

Q It's ineffective --

GEN. KIMMITT: Virtually ineffective as a chemical weapon with the exception of the small trace that was found as they went up and detected it.

Q And it just -- the when and where, if you could be more precise.

GEN. KIMMITT: No. Again, in Baghdad a couple days ago.


The next thing to note is that when a reporter asks whether this finding is sufficiently worrisome (an attempted WMD attack INSIDE OF BAGHDAD) that a general alert should be circulated among Baghdadis, note the ferocity with which Kimmett minimizes the finding's consequence:

Q Evan Osnos, Chicago Tribune. If this is the first evidence or sign of a chemical munition in Baghdad, is there something -- a more broader guidance or advisory that you were planning to put out to the Iraqi people that perhaps there may be chemical munitions now floating around?

And also, does this change your posture in terms of looking for those sorts of weapons from an investigative posture, going back and looking at what Saddam may have been doing, to, in fact, a public security posture?

GEN. KIMMITT: Again, these are -- inside the round it's very hard. You can't sort of break this thing open and take these items and mix them together. You can take common household chemicals, mix them together and have somewhat the same effect. But to suggest that you've got two different chemicals laying about and putting them together makes sarin -- inside that artillery round they're probably safer than common household chemicals because of the integrity of that round, but these kind of questions I would defer to the Iraqi Survey Group to give you a full explanation on them.


Weapons of Mass Destruction? Or household chemicals in a warhead?

Now, lest you think I'm being flippant, please note that this transcript is dated 5/17 @ 10:30AM EDT. How is it that THE NEXT DAY we find Rumsfeld advocating skepticism about the finding?

Rumsfeld noted that the field test that detected the release of sarin "is not perfect".

"What we ought to do is get the sample some place where they can be tested very carefully before coming to a conclusion as to precisely what it was," he said at a question and answer session at a Washington think-tank.


Why does this matter? Well, check out this survey from LAST MONTH...

-- A 51% to 38% majority continues to believe that "Iraq actually had weapons of mass destruction," virtually unchanged since February.

-- A 49% to 36% plurality of all adults continues to believe that "clear evidence that Iraq was supporting Al Qaeda has been found." These numbers have scarcely changed since June 2003.

-- A 51% to 43% plurality continues to believe that "intelligence given before the war to President Bush by the CIA and others about Iraqi's weapons of mass destruction" was "completely" or "somewhat" accurate. In February a 50% to 45% plurality believed this.

-- While a 43% plurality believes that the "U.S. government deliberately exaggerated the reports of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to increase support for war," a 50% plurality (also virtually unchanged over the last eight months) continues to believe that the government "tried to present the information accurately."


Are you beginning to see why, after MONTHS of hearing NOTHING about WMD the odd coincidence of this one sketchy munition's discovery and Colin Powell's expressions of regreat about the Winnebagos of Destruction might smell... fishy?

More Politics

Interesting

OK. So, on Wed. May 16, we get this from Colin Powell:


"It turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading," Mr. Powell said in the interview, broadcast from Jordan. "And for that, I am disappointed and I regret it."


Then, for the first time since they were actually looking for WMD, we get this startling discovery:

American commanders said Monday that they discovered an Iraqi artillery shell last week containing sarin, one of the deadly nerve agents that Saddam Hussein said he had destroyed before the war began last year.


Now, I hate to sound like a paranoid cynic here, but am I the only one getting deja vu to the summertime pattern of startling finds of weapons tech splashed across the front pages and then blushing retractions buried deep within the paper?

And "make no mistake", we WERE led to believe that the trailers were WMD.

Anyhow, I just bring this up because if a story so conveniently time, is pre-emptively disavowed by Rumsfeld...

I would say the odds of it turning out credible are slim to none. Wouldn't you agree?

More Politics

A Letter I just Wrote

So, I just received a letter in the mail from Howard Dean, encouraging me to support his nascent Political Action Committee, "Democracy for America." I don't intend to do so, since I am reserving all further political giving this cycle for the actual candidate for the election. I'm not a millionaire, and I simply can't afford to spread my dollars diffulsively. KERRY TO THE MAX, BABY!!!! *urk* Hey, can't blame me for trying to fake it.

Anyhow, I'm gonna' use their Business Reply Mail envelope (with postage enclosed, I'm so icky) to send in the following letter written on the back of their solicitation, and I figured I'd transcribe it here before I send it:


Dear D.F.A. folks,

Thanks for your passion and commitment. We're going to need it! I cannot contribute at this time, as I am presently saving money to make a large donation directly to the campaign of John Kerry (ick!). By August I should be able to make the maximum contribution (I'm doing this on a secretary's salary, after all!) of $2000.

Anyhow, as a big supporter of Howard Dean, tell him to get his ass back into elected office! I supported Howard Dean on the basis of his refreshing combination of liberalism (not to be confused with progressivism... which I generally find abhorrent), pragmatism and eloquence. Watching the implosion of Dean's campagin, I can't help but feel that he allowed his campaign to become captivated by a group that did not share the values he originally espouses - of fiscal moderation, cautious social advancement, political liberalism, and pragmatic internationalism. Instead, the candidate was redefined by his supporters as an advocate of lowest-common-denominator leftist reactionism. Howard Dean is a remarkable politician and a remarkable man. He owes it to this nation to re-enter the political arena and join the contest over the ideals and the sould of this Republic. With the stakes this high, we need it. The changes he benefitted from in fundraising will continue apace of their own accord.

Yours,
Geoff


Dean was "found" by his movement. And he got destroyed by them. I sure hope he isn't overestimating his own agency in the formation of the movement which he led...

More Politics

Sunday, May 16, 2004

Illiberalism

Why The New York Times and I will never really be ideological friends...

It's not so much their enthusiasm for anti-smoking as a public interest. It manifestly IS a legitimate public interest to reduce smoking in the population at large, but not for the reasons they cite. Reducing smoking in bars is fine to the extent that one is considering the material interests of non-smoking bar patrons. Increasing the cost of smoking is fine to the extent that one is off-setting the public costs of the habit.

But none of this is the logic upon which their editorial board operates. No, the compelling state interest is the salvation of actors from the consequences of their own impoverished judgment. "All this shows how effective vigorous government action can be in breaking a harmful addiction. That makes it all the more frustrating that so many state and local governments — lured by the possibilities of revenue from slot machines, lotteries and casinos — are doing everything they can to make addictive gambling more convenient and irresistible. "

Now, I'm a non-smoker. I went from a pack-a-day-plus-habit-for-seven-years to a no-cigarettes-any-day-pattern over five months ago. One can't argue that I'm still physically addicted to smoking. If anything, I feel like the distance from my habit has given me a good sense of perspective on the whole thing. Except for the negative impact upon health, I have to admit that smoking is on the whole, a wonderful thing. Most Americans SHOULD BE SMOKERS for some point in their life. It materially enhances quality of life, broadens perspective, is good for the mind and good for the soul. I wish I could still be a smoker, and don't regret for a moment that I originally became a smoker, despite the pain of my latter-period habit and the excruciating pain of withdrawal.

I wouldn't want to live in a world where the Taliban were able to impose their moral values upon my private choices of pleasure. The oppressive nannying ninnyhood of the New York Times Editorial Board is not qualitatively separate from the preening coercive moralism of Falwell-type conservative Christians or fundamentalist Islamic imams. The hijacking of the state to coerce behavior from citizens for no reason apart from the presumptive salutary benefits to private interiority is fundamentally illiberal and should be denounced.

More Politics