I just watched the classic 1966 film, "Khartoum", starring Charlton Heston as British freelance General Charles "Chinese" Gordon (and no less than Laurence Olivier as his nemesis, the Mahdi). The movie is a semi-historical epic on the sack of Khartoum in 1895, Gordon's martyrdom, and the difficulties of maintaining a far-flung, overstretched empire in that period. It's got me thinking...
How Afghanistan Can Win
I'm getting a little tired of our military geniuses telling us how we can win in Afghanistan. That kind of myopia is probably the only real similarity between the Afghan conflict and our war in Vietnam.
We can't win in Afghanistan, though we can hope to avoid getting massacred there, like the British in the 1850's, or being chased out at gunpoint, like the Soviets in 1990 (it was their Vietnam, and it was bad enough to help put the kibosh on the Soviet state).
There is really no way that the Taliban can be defeated militarily, and the sooner we realize that, the better. We can "clear and hold" more ground than we have, if we put in more troops, but the more we put in, the less likely we are to get the outcome we want. There isn't going to be a triumphant march through a flower-strewn Kabul bearing Osama Bin Laden's charred corpse, much as it might thrill us.
First of all, he's long gone from Afghanistan, and there's no reason to think he'll come back. That would appear to be Pakistan's problem now (another day's discourse). Second, while we have the best forces in the world, the Afghans are easily good enough to fight us indefinitely, if they choose to. And they will do so, if it becomes a matter of us trying to impose rule on them. Just like when the Soviets tried it.
Third, the Taliban are not the central locus of international terrorism, though they seem to be learning the modern insurgency game very well, the longer we hang around. They committed a major error when they allowed Al Qaeda to operate out of their Afghanistan--their traditional hospitality, gone wrong--and I'm quite sure they know it; it caused them to lose the 90% or so of the country they had painstakingly gained control of. They're not even nationalists, really; they are traditional tribal people with pan-Islamic dreams (like the Mahdi).
We should look at them the way Lincoln looked at the slavers in the South, prior to the secessionist wave leading to the Civil War. We should help the Karzai regime (or its successor) contain them, prevent their expansion, and they will eventually die out as the anachronism they are. Let them come back, and give them a good chunk of the country--one far from Pakistani mischief-makers, away from the strategic Kandahar-Kabul highway--and put a fence around it. Nothing comes in or goes out (especially the poppies!), unless it's people leaving their antique thraldom. Inside the Taliban Autonomous Zone, though, they can teach what they want, imprison their daughters (for their own good, of course), chop off hands, whatever.
It's the only way to get peace, and that's what the Afghans want. Otherwise, this thing could drag on for decades (more). After the election gets settled, Holbrooke needs to sit down with Karzai, tell him the limits of American involvement (hint: by 2012, we've got to be below the 47,000 or so Americans we had there when Obama's administration started; this will line up very well with what Karzai wants, too), and figure out how we can make this thing work for the Afghan people.
It's Practically a Slander
The current Newsweek* has on its back page the rhetorical question,"Did Britain Wreck the World?" I call it rhetorical, though they do answer it: "By Jove, it certainly seems that way." That's sarcasm, mockery, but they go on to blame--with a seemingly straight face--the British Empire for "most of today's festering conflicts". They give seven cases: Sri Lanka, India/Pakistan, Iraq, Sudan, Israel/Palestine, Somalia, and Nigeria. In some, those bloody Brits split up countries and caused their problems, in others they combined different ethnic groups and made them.
Look, I'm no apologist for the English (really, I'm not), but this is ridiculous. First, their meddling didn't seem to doom the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand so badly--or, if those are too distant, then look at Singapore, Malaysia, or Ireland--all countries where things were certainly mucked up by the Brits in the 20th century (like all the cases they cited), but they've been able to recover. Actually, India's done pretty well for itself since independence, considering. And I think Egypt was a British colony, too--a lot more of the time than Iraq, Sudan, or Somalia--not that it's perfect or anything. And I'm certain that there were some problems between the Jews and their Middle Eastern neighbors when the residents of Great Britain were still painting themselves blue and worshipping trees: ever hear of David and Goliath?
The Last Empire
Thus was entitled a great set of essays by Gore Vidal, postulating a thesis of American imperialism. Now, I'm a huge fan of Mr. Veedal (as Lily Tomlin used to say it, back in the day, on Laugh In!), but I think he's got this one wrong. With all respect to him, we don't have a clue how to run an empire, never did--not nearly as well as even the British!
When you look at it, the Last Empire is actually probably about the same as the First Empire: It's China. OK, maybe today's empire is a bit more extensive, with a different capital city. I think it's pretty clear when you look at Xinjiang, Tibet, or suzerains like Hong Kong, Macao, Taiwan (they wish), maybe even North Korea. It's not that hard to co-exist with the Emperor if you're not a subject: kowtow, and provide tribute. There is the thorny question of assimilation, though: what was it the Borg said (besides "resistance is futile", which certainly also applies)?
As for the US, we're too far away to be considered a part of their domain (not so with Russian Siberia, though, which could become a real problem if the current phase of Beijing engineers gives way to a more warlike imperial court). We have served to replenish the imperial treasury, so we can go on our merry way--globalization was a tactic, they played it very well, but they're really much more concerned with keeping the peace at home. No?
*They don't deserve a link for this one; besides, if they're going to be so lazy as to put out an issue dated "August 24 & 31"...
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Hail the Fallen Lion
Ted Kennedy's death brings to a close one of the great careers in the Senate, one of the top ten all-time in both longevity and significance.
The Senate is an institution which is very resistant to change and to rapid results of any kind; repeated blows on the anvil are required to make anything of the hot metal piece coming from the forge. Teddy The Hammer was good at that--his legacy in the Senate is marked by consistency, persistence, and the other required element--certain re-election at will.
Kennedy had more than his share of sins to answer for: his penance was staying the course in the Senate and staying true to his causes, on which he represented his family's long-standing, orthodox liberal stances, and his resulting public image is large, gnarly, and sufficiently shiny, like one of those modern-day bronze sculptures with rough features.
Teddy was never quite at the level required for Presidential politics, as his disastrous 1980 campaign to take the nomination from Jimmy Carter showed.
As the untimely death of Mufaza in The Lion King brought danger to his heir and an unworthy immediate successor, there will be someone put into the position in haste, who will not last. The next Kennedy to occupy the seat will emerge sooner or later, we can be sure. Possibly Caroline, who seemed interested in Hillary's seat that was given to another? I think if she took the trouble to run for it, she could win, even if her residency in Massachusetts is questionable or non-existent: sort of a reverse Bobby Kennedy-into-the-Senate-from-NY maneuver.
My prediction just weeks ago that Kennedy and Robert Byrd would rise from their deathbeds to break cloture and secure the public option has, unfortunately, already been proved wrong. I still think their names will memorialize a piece of health-care reform legislation this year. The general thinking is that it will be the whole bill, though with the current thinking that only "reconciliation" bills on health care will get through the Senate this year (budget reconciliation, not at all reconciliations with Republicans), there may not be any single great bill, and it may be done piecemeal. I would still propose that Kennedy's name be featured on the section relating to the public option, which needs his beyond-the-grave support more than any other part.
The Senate is an institution which is very resistant to change and to rapid results of any kind; repeated blows on the anvil are required to make anything of the hot metal piece coming from the forge. Teddy The Hammer was good at that--his legacy in the Senate is marked by consistency, persistence, and the other required element--certain re-election at will.
Kennedy had more than his share of sins to answer for: his penance was staying the course in the Senate and staying true to his causes, on which he represented his family's long-standing, orthodox liberal stances, and his resulting public image is large, gnarly, and sufficiently shiny, like one of those modern-day bronze sculptures with rough features.
Teddy was never quite at the level required for Presidential politics, as his disastrous 1980 campaign to take the nomination from Jimmy Carter showed.
As the untimely death of Mufaza in The Lion King brought danger to his heir and an unworthy immediate successor, there will be someone put into the position in haste, who will not last. The next Kennedy to occupy the seat will emerge sooner or later, we can be sure. Possibly Caroline, who seemed interested in Hillary's seat that was given to another? I think if she took the trouble to run for it, she could win, even if her residency in Massachusetts is questionable or non-existent: sort of a reverse Bobby Kennedy-into-the-Senate-from-NY maneuver.
My prediction just weeks ago that Kennedy and Robert Byrd would rise from their deathbeds to break cloture and secure the public option has, unfortunately, already been proved wrong. I still think their names will memorialize a piece of health-care reform legislation this year. The general thinking is that it will be the whole bill, though with the current thinking that only "reconciliation" bills on health care will get through the Senate this year (budget reconciliation, not at all reconciliations with Republicans), there may not be any single great bill, and it may be done piecemeal. I would still propose that Kennedy's name be featured on the section relating to the public option, which needs his beyond-the-grave support more than any other part.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Letter to "Prius Diary, First Anniversary Edition"
We submitted this honest assessment to the Times this morning.
When we bought our 2003 Prius (aqua blue--bring it back!), the improvement in our gas mileage would in no way pay for the increased cost. We did the math, but wanted to let our wallet speak for our support for the concept.
The hybrid technology is a significant improvement, and the ability to combine various power sources and re-use the kinetic energy from braking is something that will end up changing our world.
In the meantime, we would rate the car as a moderate success: it was not rugged enough for the bad roads here in Taos (particularly the skinny tires), and the gas mileage in town was only 35-40 mpg (the highway mileage was 55 or so, as advertised). We had one major problem in the first year, with the auxiliary battery (which starts the car and its computer systems, and is not rechargeable): after going through a gauntlet of check, re-charge, and re-check, Toyota did come through and gave us a new lithium-ion battery (value reputedly some $3000!) which fixed the problem.
We viewed our oldie hybrid as a collector's item, and one that would actually increase in value. How sad, then, when it was totalled recently in a one-car encounter with a utility pole at about 15 mph.
The federal government should renew for the Prius the credit given for other hybrids: Toyota should not be penalized for the popularity of this model.
When we bought our 2003 Prius (aqua blue--bring it back!), the improvement in our gas mileage would in no way pay for the increased cost. We did the math, but wanted to let our wallet speak for our support for the concept.
The hybrid technology is a significant improvement, and the ability to combine various power sources and re-use the kinetic energy from braking is something that will end up changing our world.
In the meantime, we would rate the car as a moderate success: it was not rugged enough for the bad roads here in Taos (particularly the skinny tires), and the gas mileage in town was only 35-40 mpg (the highway mileage was 55 or so, as advertised). We had one major problem in the first year, with the auxiliary battery (which starts the car and its computer systems, and is not rechargeable): after going through a gauntlet of check, re-charge, and re-check, Toyota did come through and gave us a new lithium-ion battery (value reputedly some $3000!) which fixed the problem.
We viewed our oldie hybrid as a collector's item, and one that would actually increase in value. How sad, then, when it was totalled recently in a one-car encounter with a utility pole at about 15 mph.
The federal government should renew for the Prius the credit given for other hybrids: Toyota should not be penalized for the popularity of this model.
A Bountiful Season
This has been the best growing season I've ever seen in Taos. I'd say it's true since I've first visited here fifteen years ago, though I might've missed something, but it's certainly true since we moved here in 2003.
Far and away. The late spring rains and relatively mild spring frosts have produced a bumper year for everything: first the cherries, then the apricots--my God, the apricots!--now, even the apples, pears, and plums. The Indian plums (generally inedible by humans, except boiled with lots of sugar to make jam) are everywhere--on the Pueblo lands, they're brilliantly crimson. Here in town, where there's more shade, so the sun is less than the 12 hours or so solid out in the open, they are not quite ripe yet. Peaches have been great, too, but they take more water and so mostly come from the valleys below, or from Colorado.
Nobody's complaining here--why would they? Instead, the discussion is about the meaning of this great season in the larger context, if there is one. Take, for example, the piece by Linda Kemper Fair in the Horse Fly of August 15, who shifts in mid-article as quickly as the weather changes
(practically daily, this time of year) from sunny praise of "The Divine Season" to thunder and rain and the politics of global warming.
Of course, we don't know whether this year is simply an outlier--there's plenty of reason to think so--or a harbinger of some permanent change. If we are going to get rain, and lots of it, every May/June, well, there are certainly worse fates. It would be a concern if we traded our winter snows for more reliable greening every summer, only because it would gut the ski season, and presumably thus the tourist trade, which might cut down the building of second homes and eliminate our one reliable source of income: building second homes and making real estate deals around that trade.
On the other hand, if the Upper Rio Grande changes and the downstream lands don't (there's no evidence that Santa Fe or Albuquerque is wearing the green like us), then they'll be coming up to visit us en masse in the future, the way the seem to be doing this summer. That means record traffic jams, people getting mightily annoyed with the town's lazy-fare approach to traffic management, and we'll be the new Espanola: A Town to Endure Driving Through! (start making the signs now)
Another sign of change, and not for the good, is the new football field with its shiny bleachers and colorful Astroturf (puky green, except for the Halloween-ish Taos Tigers' black and garish orange in the end zones). Personally, I can't believe the Horse Fly has come out in favor of this one, though it must be refreshing for their moribund sports department this time of year that there's actually some interest in the football team. What's the justification, anyway, besides money to spend and it's too hard to keep the grass green (or at least it used to be, before this year?)
Far and away. The late spring rains and relatively mild spring frosts have produced a bumper year for everything: first the cherries, then the apricots--my God, the apricots!--now, even the apples, pears, and plums. The Indian plums (generally inedible by humans, except boiled with lots of sugar to make jam) are everywhere--on the Pueblo lands, they're brilliantly crimson. Here in town, where there's more shade, so the sun is less than the 12 hours or so solid out in the open, they are not quite ripe yet. Peaches have been great, too, but they take more water and so mostly come from the valleys below, or from Colorado.
Nobody's complaining here--why would they? Instead, the discussion is about the meaning of this great season in the larger context, if there is one. Take, for example, the piece by Linda Kemper Fair in the Horse Fly of August 15, who shifts in mid-article as quickly as the weather changes
(practically daily, this time of year) from sunny praise of "The Divine Season" to thunder and rain and the politics of global warming.
Of course, we don't know whether this year is simply an outlier--there's plenty of reason to think so--or a harbinger of some permanent change. If we are going to get rain, and lots of it, every May/June, well, there are certainly worse fates. It would be a concern if we traded our winter snows for more reliable greening every summer, only because it would gut the ski season, and presumably thus the tourist trade, which might cut down the building of second homes and eliminate our one reliable source of income: building second homes and making real estate deals around that trade.
On the other hand, if the Upper Rio Grande changes and the downstream lands don't (there's no evidence that Santa Fe or Albuquerque is wearing the green like us), then they'll be coming up to visit us en masse in the future, the way the seem to be doing this summer. That means record traffic jams, people getting mightily annoyed with the town's lazy-fare approach to traffic management, and we'll be the new Espanola: A Town to Endure Driving Through! (start making the signs now)
Another sign of change, and not for the good, is the new football field with its shiny bleachers and colorful Astroturf (puky green, except for the Halloween-ish Taos Tigers' black and garish orange in the end zones). Personally, I can't believe the Horse Fly has come out in favor of this one, though it must be refreshing for their moribund sports department this time of year that there's actually some interest in the football team. What's the justification, anyway, besides money to spend and it's too hard to keep the grass green (or at least it used to be, before this year?)
Thursday, August 20, 2009
You Cannot Keep If You Cannot Get...
...Them Honest
We are talking about the health insurance companies, of course.
Even the Republicans acknowledge that premiums for health insurance, denial of coverage for those covered, and the expansion of the cherry-picking out of people with pre-existing conditions are all out of control. Young people view health insurance as a simple rip-off, in which no care is purchased: you just pay and they take. That's why universal coverage cannot be attained until this mindset is altered, and it must be through a dramatic demonstration of People Power.
The American people are skeptical of the health care reform initiative because they are not convinced that Congress will tame the insurance companies' application of greed to the detriment of our health. That is why the "public option" is so critical: it is the test we require to see if the legislators are sincere about reform.
It is true that a system in which coverage could not be denied for any pre-existing condition, nor excessive premiums imposed, would be a very different situation than the current one, even without a competing public plan. It is difficult for us to believe, though, that such a condition could arise without there being loopholes, caveats, or fine print that would end up playing us for fools--bankrupted, or worse--once again. Our distrust is that deep.
Last Saturday The New York Times ran a fascinating editorial by Richard Thaler, a professor of economics and behavioral science at the University of Chicago. It was fascinating to me because it captured many of the key points I made in my previous posting on this subject: "Is the Public Option Negotiable?" but it got the conclusions terribly wrong.
Points that he correctly addressed include the following:
Thaler asks his readers to perform a thought experiment and try to come up with some area in which the government successfully competes with private industry. He discusses the Post Office vs. the private companies UPS and FedEx (not very originally, as Obama had made a similar argument, for reasons I will never quite understand) and concludes that the government can not compete on level terms.
First, I will admit most companies choose UPS or FedEx "when it absolutely, positively has to be there overnight", as the ads say. That's OK if you have a big enough budget, but most people can stand for the package to take a couple of days, and then the Post Office is much cheaper. (At least around here.) Proving what, exactly?
Or take another example, flood insurance for the home. There are actually two, non-competing types of flood insurance: the one for properties that will never be flooded--you can get private insurance for those--and the one for places that have a history of flooding, or are on barrier islands. That one you'll only get through the Federal program--the private guys won't touch it. I don't want to get into the policy implications, which are absolutely awful, but it just goes to show: private insurance is for those who don't need it, or will pay extra. When you're talking about health insurance, those rules don't apply. The flood is coming for all of us, and it's not just the rich who need protection.
OK, Thaler admits, there is Medicare, a Federal program that competes quite successfully, but that has different rules, and the public option will have marketing and administrative costs that are different. Actually, that's where the captive insurance company AIG should come into play, with its huge distribution resources, but I'm not sure the world is ready for that one--an insurance company so much in hock to the government it would betray its own industry lobbying strategy!?
Thaler draws the conclusion that the public option is "neither necessary nor sufficient" for health care reform. He has that half right: it really isn't sufficient, but it is necessary, even if he's correct that not that many will take it up. (Initially, anyway.) He advises Republicans to go along with it, if it is sufficiently limited, and Democrats to let it go: I'd say neither are going to take that advice, which is something he should know with his professed knowledge of economics and behavioral science.
It's the PUBLIC Option, Stupid
This can only be settled in one way: publicly. The six Finance Committee senators have to develop a "fair" framework for a public option to compete, that title of the bill has to come to a vote in the Senate, and we will take names: who's with us, and who's with the insurance companies? I don't think a single Democrat would dare to vote against it, and the sixty votes would be found: Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd will somehow make it to the floor to vote for that one, and the public option will be renamed the Kennedy-Byrd Plan in honor of their fortitude. It will, eventually, be successful, and the Republicans will be despised, or ignored, for having opposed it so single-mindedly (or nearly so).
I think the Republicans among the Six probably have figured this out, so they have had to dig in their feet to keep anything like a public option coming out of committee. They must not be allowed to succeed.
Like it or not, Obamadmin, this will be the litmus test to see if there is still something that can be called Change We Can Believe In. Or even Change In Which We Can Believe!
We are talking about the health insurance companies, of course.
Even the Republicans acknowledge that premiums for health insurance, denial of coverage for those covered, and the expansion of the cherry-picking out of people with pre-existing conditions are all out of control. Young people view health insurance as a simple rip-off, in which no care is purchased: you just pay and they take. That's why universal coverage cannot be attained until this mindset is altered, and it must be through a dramatic demonstration of People Power.
The American people are skeptical of the health care reform initiative because they are not convinced that Congress will tame the insurance companies' application of greed to the detriment of our health. That is why the "public option" is so critical: it is the test we require to see if the legislators are sincere about reform.
It is true that a system in which coverage could not be denied for any pre-existing condition, nor excessive premiums imposed, would be a very different situation than the current one, even without a competing public plan. It is difficult for us to believe, though, that such a condition could arise without there being loopholes, caveats, or fine print that would end up playing us for fools--bankrupted, or worse--once again. Our distrust is that deep.
Last Saturday The New York Times ran a fascinating editorial by Richard Thaler, a professor of economics and behavioral science at the University of Chicago. It was fascinating to me because it captured many of the key points I made in my previous posting on this subject: "Is the Public Option Negotiable?" but it got the conclusions terribly wrong.
Points that he correctly addressed include the following:
o) The public option must be required to break even (I'd go further and say it should be required to make a modest profit, thus helping with our future Medicare funding problems);
o) Subsidies for the poor to get insurance can not be given preferentially to the public option program over the private insurers;
o) The public option program can not use the same mandated discounts that Medicare uses (this was a provision the Blue Dogs in the House insisted upon before allowing the House bill to go forward, and its absence would be a deal-killer in trying to get many doctors to participate in the program); and
o) Given these limitations, many will choose to keep the insurance they have now, the conclusion being that the public option, thus limited, would not destroy the private health insurance industry, contrary to the claims of its opponents.
Thaler asks his readers to perform a thought experiment and try to come up with some area in which the government successfully competes with private industry. He discusses the Post Office vs. the private companies UPS and FedEx (not very originally, as Obama had made a similar argument, for reasons I will never quite understand) and concludes that the government can not compete on level terms.
First, I will admit most companies choose UPS or FedEx "when it absolutely, positively has to be there overnight", as the ads say. That's OK if you have a big enough budget, but most people can stand for the package to take a couple of days, and then the Post Office is much cheaper. (At least around here.) Proving what, exactly?
Or take another example, flood insurance for the home. There are actually two, non-competing types of flood insurance: the one for properties that will never be flooded--you can get private insurance for those--and the one for places that have a history of flooding, or are on barrier islands. That one you'll only get through the Federal program--the private guys won't touch it. I don't want to get into the policy implications, which are absolutely awful, but it just goes to show: private insurance is for those who don't need it, or will pay extra. When you're talking about health insurance, those rules don't apply. The flood is coming for all of us, and it's not just the rich who need protection.
OK, Thaler admits, there is Medicare, a Federal program that competes quite successfully, but that has different rules, and the public option will have marketing and administrative costs that are different. Actually, that's where the captive insurance company AIG should come into play, with its huge distribution resources, but I'm not sure the world is ready for that one--an insurance company so much in hock to the government it would betray its own industry lobbying strategy!?
Thaler draws the conclusion that the public option is "neither necessary nor sufficient" for health care reform. He has that half right: it really isn't sufficient, but it is necessary, even if he's correct that not that many will take it up. (Initially, anyway.) He advises Republicans to go along with it, if it is sufficiently limited, and Democrats to let it go: I'd say neither are going to take that advice, which is something he should know with his professed knowledge of economics and behavioral science.
It's the PUBLIC Option, Stupid
This can only be settled in one way: publicly. The six Finance Committee senators have to develop a "fair" framework for a public option to compete, that title of the bill has to come to a vote in the Senate, and we will take names: who's with us, and who's with the insurance companies? I don't think a single Democrat would dare to vote against it, and the sixty votes would be found: Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd will somehow make it to the floor to vote for that one, and the public option will be renamed the Kennedy-Byrd Plan in honor of their fortitude. It will, eventually, be successful, and the Republicans will be despised, or ignored, for having opposed it so single-mindedly (or nearly so).
I think the Republicans among the Six probably have figured this out, so they have had to dig in their feet to keep anything like a public option coming out of committee. They must not be allowed to succeed.
Like it or not, Obamadmin, this will be the litmus test to see if there is still something that can be called Change We Can Believe In. Or even Change In Which We Can Believe!
Sunday, August 16, 2009
The Times in Their Labyrinth
Clearly, we can and will lose many of our local newspapers in coming years. We will regret the loss of jobs, but surely not the reduction of trees so we can read about more car crashes, cops-and-robbers, and human interest/disaster stories. Besides which, all those ugly non-news items will still be out there on YouTube or something.
We can envision a future where there will be five national printed newspapers: some kind of Washington Post/Politico amalgam for the policy wonks; The Wall Street Journal for the wealthy and wannabe-rich Republicans; some kind of L.A.Times/Variety/Billboard amalgam for the entertainment elite and wannabe-famous; the USA Today for ordinary folks, and the Times for the intelligentsia. The Times' problem is that it will remain something of an ivory tower, under frequent attack, isolated...
...But still indispensable. We'd like to review three recent cases in which the Times proved its value once again as the serious paper of record:
Case 1--Barack Obama's op-ed on the health care debate Sunday: It is not that he said anything new or original in it; it was basically the stump speech he has been delivering in recent weeks. He was entirely silent on the key topic of the moment, the "public option" (see my previous post). But there is his argument, undoctored and without commentary, for those too busy to have paid attention previously. Best of all, especially for those folks, there is the cute label at the bottom, in italics: "Barack Obama is the President of the United States." OK for putting that on record!
Case 2--Also in Sunday's paper, a long study--entitled "Can Game Theory Predict When Iran Will Get the Bomb?"--of a brilliant man and his method of predicting future outcomes of complex human coalitions with dynamic, quantitative game-theory methods.
Although clearly he would dismiss me as a practitioner of rank speculation and whimsy (see our post), even worse as an insignificant, non-commercial practitioner, I claim Bueno de Mesquita as a kindred spirit. He has immaculately dressed up what I often try to do on this blog--carefully examining the key players, their desired outcomes, and their ability to effect the same, and then coming up with a most likely scenario--and he has sold it for big money to the CIA and other big-time clients, and he claims the track record to back it up. At the least, he's a role model.
By the way, his prediction is that Iran will move all the way to be fully ready to explode a bomb--then stop. I would endorse that prediction: the best result for Iran is not having the bomb--which will backfire against them, which violates everything its leaders have repeatedly stated--but showing they can do it, on brief notice, if they decide they do need it.
Case 3--In the next 48 hours (as we write on August 19), Afghanistan is having a Presidential election. The outcome, at one level, seems fairly certain--the incumbent, Hamid Karzai, should win, either with 50%+ of the votes in the first round, or in a runoff against his top opponent, Abdullah Abdullah. The Times has used this event, though--which we can only hope will come off with a minimum of violence, and with a maximum of integrity as compared with the similar, recent event in Iran--as the occasion to educate us all about this complex, hopeless country in which we are investing so much while knowing so little.
A lengthy article in last Sunday's Times Magazine, "President Karzai in his Labyrinth", is an indictment of Karzai's administration as being ineffective, hopelessly compromised with its tolerance of warlordism, corrupted by the opium trade, and Karzai personally as being oblivious, complacent, and far too isolated.
I went on record a long time ago about President Karzai: I felt that we (the US, and the anti-Taliban world in general) were extremely fortunate in finding Karzai and arranging for him to be put into his position. I still feel that way. Karzai is personally uncorrupted, incredibly courageous, sincerely concerned for his people, and determined to see his government victorious and surviving this long battle against the Taliban in order to preserve its legitimacy and as much of his people's freedoms as possible. He will win because he is clearly the symbol of the Pashtun majority's desire for a unified Afghan state, and the Afghanis will be unhappy with him because their state is such a mess.
Of course, Karzai is trapped in a difficult security situation: how many assassination attempts has he survived? (answer: plenty) When he leaves his capital, his life depends on these warlords he has to tolerate, first because he doesn't have the power to supplant them (the current ferocious battle for Helmand Province seems clearly the result of trying to do so there) and secondly because he's been told to tolerate them by his American military/economic backers.
A second Times article published more recently featured the third-most prominent of the many candidates in the election, Ashraf Ghani, former finance minister in Karzai's government but now a severe critic. It just showed that there are other prominent, educated Pashtun candidates, ones we might prefer except for the fact that they have even less of a power base or popular support, and just how difficult it would be for anyone else to do Karzai's job. Ghani's support is estimated at about 5%, so he's unlikely even to be close to making it into a runoff election if there were to be one.
The bottom line is that Karzai will win but, in the best case, it will not help much. Afghanistan clearly shows the limitations of what one person--even with sterling qualities, unlimited energy, and the best intentions--can do without adequate support (Barack Obama may end up also showing that, but that will be for another day's argument). Karzai will be empowered to stay in office for a couple more years (assuming he can dodge the future assassination attempts), then he can start negotiating, a la al-Maliki in Iraq, for the foreigners to go under the best terms possible.
Do I need to spell out the similarities between Hamid Karzai and the New York Times?
We can envision a future where there will be five national printed newspapers: some kind of Washington Post/Politico amalgam for the policy wonks; The Wall Street Journal for the wealthy and wannabe-rich Republicans; some kind of L.A.Times/Variety/Billboard amalgam for the entertainment elite and wannabe-famous; the USA Today for ordinary folks, and the Times for the intelligentsia. The Times' problem is that it will remain something of an ivory tower, under frequent attack, isolated...
...But still indispensable. We'd like to review three recent cases in which the Times proved its value once again as the serious paper of record:
Case 1--Barack Obama's op-ed on the health care debate Sunday: It is not that he said anything new or original in it; it was basically the stump speech he has been delivering in recent weeks. He was entirely silent on the key topic of the moment, the "public option" (see my previous post). But there is his argument, undoctored and without commentary, for those too busy to have paid attention previously. Best of all, especially for those folks, there is the cute label at the bottom, in italics: "Barack Obama is the President of the United States." OK for putting that on record!
Case 2--Also in Sunday's paper, a long study--entitled "Can Game Theory Predict When Iran Will Get the Bomb?"--of a brilliant man and his method of predicting future outcomes of complex human coalitions with dynamic, quantitative game-theory methods.
Although clearly he would dismiss me as a practitioner of rank speculation and whimsy (see our post), even worse as an insignificant, non-commercial practitioner, I claim Bueno de Mesquita as a kindred spirit. He has immaculately dressed up what I often try to do on this blog--carefully examining the key players, their desired outcomes, and their ability to effect the same, and then coming up with a most likely scenario--and he has sold it for big money to the CIA and other big-time clients, and he claims the track record to back it up. At the least, he's a role model.
By the way, his prediction is that Iran will move all the way to be fully ready to explode a bomb--then stop. I would endorse that prediction: the best result for Iran is not having the bomb--which will backfire against them, which violates everything its leaders have repeatedly stated--but showing they can do it, on brief notice, if they decide they do need it.
Case 3--In the next 48 hours (as we write on August 19), Afghanistan is having a Presidential election. The outcome, at one level, seems fairly certain--the incumbent, Hamid Karzai, should win, either with 50%+ of the votes in the first round, or in a runoff against his top opponent, Abdullah Abdullah. The Times has used this event, though--which we can only hope will come off with a minimum of violence, and with a maximum of integrity as compared with the similar, recent event in Iran--as the occasion to educate us all about this complex, hopeless country in which we are investing so much while knowing so little.
A lengthy article in last Sunday's Times Magazine, "President Karzai in his Labyrinth", is an indictment of Karzai's administration as being ineffective, hopelessly compromised with its tolerance of warlordism, corrupted by the opium trade, and Karzai personally as being oblivious, complacent, and far too isolated.
I went on record a long time ago about President Karzai: I felt that we (the US, and the anti-Taliban world in general) were extremely fortunate in finding Karzai and arranging for him to be put into his position. I still feel that way. Karzai is personally uncorrupted, incredibly courageous, sincerely concerned for his people, and determined to see his government victorious and surviving this long battle against the Taliban in order to preserve its legitimacy and as much of his people's freedoms as possible. He will win because he is clearly the symbol of the Pashtun majority's desire for a unified Afghan state, and the Afghanis will be unhappy with him because their state is such a mess.
Of course, Karzai is trapped in a difficult security situation: how many assassination attempts has he survived? (answer: plenty) When he leaves his capital, his life depends on these warlords he has to tolerate, first because he doesn't have the power to supplant them (the current ferocious battle for Helmand Province seems clearly the result of trying to do so there) and secondly because he's been told to tolerate them by his American military/economic backers.
A second Times article published more recently featured the third-most prominent of the many candidates in the election, Ashraf Ghani, former finance minister in Karzai's government but now a severe critic. It just showed that there are other prominent, educated Pashtun candidates, ones we might prefer except for the fact that they have even less of a power base or popular support, and just how difficult it would be for anyone else to do Karzai's job. Ghani's support is estimated at about 5%, so he's unlikely even to be close to making it into a runoff election if there were to be one.
The bottom line is that Karzai will win but, in the best case, it will not help much. Afghanistan clearly shows the limitations of what one person--even with sterling qualities, unlimited energy, and the best intentions--can do without adequate support (Barack Obama may end up also showing that, but that will be for another day's argument). Karzai will be empowered to stay in office for a couple more years (assuming he can dodge the future assassination attempts), then he can start negotiating, a la al-Maliki in Iraq, for the foreigners to go under the best terms possible.
Do I need to spell out the similarities between Hamid Karzai and the New York Times?
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Obama and the U.N. General Assembly
Credo asked me to vote among five choices on the question, "What message should President Obama deliver to the world at the UN General Assembly?"
Choices were: Security; Climate Change; Millennium Development Goals; Treaties; Multilateralism.
Then, they provided a forum for me to comment on Facebook.
Here's my comment:
I think that Obama will and should mention the climate change goals--the U.S. legislation, weak as it may be, and leadership at the Copenhagen conference in developing new worldwide objectives and policies. More important, though, and more likely to be underplayed in his speech is that he feature the Millennium Development objectives, so that's what I voted for.
I'd like to suggest something else of enduring importance, one that specifically concerns the U.N. as an organization and does not get much attention here in the U.S.: the need for general reform of the U.N. Charter, and specifically to expand the Security Council. The U.S. should go on record as favoring the expansion of the Security Council by four seats: permanent ones for Brazil, India, and Japan, as well as one to be shared in alternate years by Germany and Turkey. Most ambitiously, he should suggest the notion that the Security Council move to Jerusalem (!) and pledge a battalion of U.S. Marines to defend its security. That would be a Wow! moment the world would never forget.
Finally, if he believes in it, Obama should declare his personal support for a new, democratically-elected assembly to replace the UNESCO organization. Constituencies for this new body should be set up to cross national boundaries, consider ethnic group representation, and the quality of electoral participation should be monitored by a new Electoral Supervision Agency;the U.N. should, for the first time, assist the world in moving toward participatory democracy.
I'm sure that's more than Credo asked for; more than Obama would want to hear; and more than my compatriots would sign up for. But, there it is: what I think he should say.
Choices were: Security; Climate Change; Millennium Development Goals; Treaties; Multilateralism.
Then, they provided a forum for me to comment on Facebook.
Here's my comment:
I think that Obama will and should mention the climate change goals--the U.S. legislation, weak as it may be, and leadership at the Copenhagen conference in developing new worldwide objectives and policies. More important, though, and more likely to be underplayed in his speech is that he feature the Millennium Development objectives, so that's what I voted for.
I'd like to suggest something else of enduring importance, one that specifically concerns the U.N. as an organization and does not get much attention here in the U.S.: the need for general reform of the U.N. Charter, and specifically to expand the Security Council. The U.S. should go on record as favoring the expansion of the Security Council by four seats: permanent ones for Brazil, India, and Japan, as well as one to be shared in alternate years by Germany and Turkey. Most ambitiously, he should suggest the notion that the Security Council move to Jerusalem (!) and pledge a battalion of U.S. Marines to defend its security. That would be a Wow! moment the world would never forget.
Finally, if he believes in it, Obama should declare his personal support for a new, democratically-elected assembly to replace the UNESCO organization. Constituencies for this new body should be set up to cross national boundaries, consider ethnic group representation, and the quality of electoral participation should be monitored by a new Electoral Supervision Agency;the U.N. should, for the first time, assist the world in moving toward participatory democracy.
I'm sure that's more than Credo asked for; more than Obama would want to hear; and more than my compatriots would sign up for. But, there it is: what I think he should say.
Sen. Bingaman's Secret Mission
Our state's veteran Senator Jeff Bingaman is in a privileged position in key committees. Right now, he's one of the six Finance Committee members who have been meeting daily to try to work out a bipartisan version of the health bill.
So, why is it that in his most recent update to his constituents he only talks about the health pork he's obtained for us, and not his vital role in bringing health care reform to all of us?
The suspicion rises that it's because he's busy selling us out, and the liberal mobilization groups have been agitating for me to call and put pressure on him.
Following up, I checked his website for his position on health care It turns out that he has a fairly orthodox liberal position on the health care reform bill, and is strongly in favor of the public option (unlike the other two Dems in the secret panel, Committee Chairman Baucus--reputedly the Senator receiving the most contributions from the insurance industry--and "give us co-ops or give us death" Kent Conrad).
What is he up to, and why doesn't he come clean to us about it? If I were him, I'd be seriously thinking about walking out and denouncing the effort as a fraud being perpetrated on the American people.
I'm sure he's just trying to get the best, most probable, favorable outcome, but I don't think that crew is going to allow it to come out.
http://bingaman.senate.gov/policy/20090619-01.cfm
So, why is it that in his most recent update to his constituents he only talks about the health pork he's obtained for us, and not his vital role in bringing health care reform to all of us?
The suspicion rises that it's because he's busy selling us out, and the liberal mobilization groups have been agitating for me to call and put pressure on him.
Following up, I checked his website for his position on health care It turns out that he has a fairly orthodox liberal position on the health care reform bill, and is strongly in favor of the public option (unlike the other two Dems in the secret panel, Committee Chairman Baucus--reputedly the Senator receiving the most contributions from the insurance industry--and "give us co-ops or give us death" Kent Conrad).
What is he up to, and why doesn't he come clean to us about it? If I were him, I'd be seriously thinking about walking out and denouncing the effort as a fraud being perpetrated on the American people.
I'm sure he's just trying to get the best, most probable, favorable outcome, but I don't think that crew is going to allow it to come out.
http://bingaman.senate.gov/policy/20090619-01.cfm
Why I Love Ricola
This was posted on the I Love Ricola Facebook site, accessed through ilovericola.com:
Live Longer & Happier with Ricola Pearls!
Cigarette smoking cessation programs give lots of attention to nicotine addiction, and how to break or supplant that. My experience with them, however, is that they overlook other key aspects of smoking and its effects, and that omission makes it harder to quit successfully.
I have to give my consumption of Ricola Pearls much of the credit for successfully quitting smoking some 15 years ago--ever since, I gratefully buy them whenever and wherever I can.
First, there's what the shrinks call the "oral fixation". The smoking quitter needs--wants--something to take its place. Ricola Pearls gave me that satisfaction--without sugar, without messy substitutes like chewing gum.
There is an even more important benefit that I got from the Pearls, one many fear to mention. Smoking is a powerful laxative, and the quitter often suffers from severe constipation. Pearls' gentle laxative properties helped immeasurably.
P.S. Also with airlandings!
The site severely limited the number of characters in my post. I would add: 1) Ricola Pearls are now very hard to find in the US, outside of the NYC area, but are plentiful in the bodegas of East Asia; and 2) the bit about landings is that chewing the Pearls (also known as "Breath Mints", but crucially, the ones without sugar that are semi-soft) helps equalize pressure in the ears as one rides in a plane landing, and then afterwards to recover full hearing in the airport and thereafter.
Finally, the post did have a commercial motive--there's some sort of prize offered--but it is entirely true, and there's no financial reward here on the blog, of course.
Live Longer & Happier with Ricola Pearls!
Cigarette smoking cessation programs give lots of attention to nicotine addiction, and how to break or supplant that. My experience with them, however, is that they overlook other key aspects of smoking and its effects, and that omission makes it harder to quit successfully.
I have to give my consumption of Ricola Pearls much of the credit for successfully quitting smoking some 15 years ago--ever since, I gratefully buy them whenever and wherever I can.
First, there's what the shrinks call the "oral fixation". The smoking quitter needs--wants--something to take its place. Ricola Pearls gave me that satisfaction--without sugar, without messy substitutes like chewing gum.
There is an even more important benefit that I got from the Pearls, one many fear to mention. Smoking is a powerful laxative, and the quitter often suffers from severe constipation. Pearls' gentle laxative properties helped immeasurably.
P.S. Also with airlandings!
The site severely limited the number of characters in my post. I would add: 1) Ricola Pearls are now very hard to find in the US, outside of the NYC area, but are plentiful in the bodegas of East Asia; and 2) the bit about landings is that chewing the Pearls (also known as "Breath Mints", but crucially, the ones without sugar that are semi-soft) helps equalize pressure in the ears as one rides in a plane landing, and then afterwards to recover full hearing in the airport and thereafter.
Finally, the post did have a commercial motive--there's some sort of prize offered--but it is entirely true, and there's no financial reward here on the blog, of course.
Thursday, August 06, 2009
What We Are Not, and What We Are
This is the piece I need to do, about once a year, in which I take a close look at what we're trying to do here, and why. We need to set ground rules for ourselves--which we'll try not to break unless we give notice--and keep ourselves motivated and our dear readers' expectations managed..
We Are Not the News
The main problem with trying to do news here is that we don't have the time to provide immediate, fact-checked reporting. We will take our time, think once or twice, research as much as we need to do to feel right about what we're writing, and do exactly as much editing as we want. So don't expect me to be all over the latest event.
Much less are we going to be a local news reporter; we have too little appreciation for the trade, and much too much respect for the local powers of retribution. Crime and punishment, real estate development, and the tourism trade are three subjects we cannot abide, and that will eliminate 90% of any local stories, anyway. As for the others, they're probably in litigation, or else, in the case of the scandal called our public schools, I have no information beyond what's in the local newspaper.
We Are Not In Anyone's PocketWe aren't offered, nor are we taking, any ads, any sponsorship of any kind. We can endorse people, policies, artistic endeavors, articles, or sports teams for that matter, but we'll do it because that's what we want, not because of any binding agreements or requirements. We aren't getting paid.
We Ain't the Elements of Style
I always hated Strunk and White, and this is part of my revenge. Yes, there are typos here and there, and passive voice, and sentence fragments. We're trying to write like people talk (not "as people talk")--OK, how educated people talk. The typos have increased, no doubt, as we moved from desktop with large monitor to the Dell Inspiron Mini (see if you can guess when!) It's a small price to pay, though, as I see it, which is with the laptop perched on my lap, feet up, in the easy chair, in front of the TV: I'll spend a lot more time with the blog, so hopefully a net benefit to all.
These Are Our Politics
I remember shooting the breeze late one work evening (would've been about 1994) with Hamid Biglari (physicist of Afghan background, turned finance guru)*--for some reason he asked me to characterize my politics, and I said "Utopian Progressive". He thought that was pretty amusing--first, that a guy in banking could be so far from the mainstream, second that I would admit it.
I supported the re-branding of liberals as "progressives" in later years: they needed to get rid of that late-19th-century ball-and-chain. That doesn't mean that I'm comfortable with them in my camp, though. What we share, hopefully, is an understanding that the arc of human destiny is away from the struggle-then-die mode which has characterized most peoples' lives for most of our history (and prehistory), toward something presumably better for more of us, more of the time.
Our politics are, and intend always to be in this blog, guided by three principles: internationalist, futurist, and humanist. With regard to the first, it's not about globalization of trade--which may be a useful tool for development, but is not the objective in itself. We aim to take the broad view, the long view, and to put the course of the collective project of humanity above all else. Feel free to hold me to this.
Yes, we're one of those big, nasty "secular humanists" your pastor may have warned you about. Hey now baby, get into my big black car/ I wanna just show you/ What my politics are.
"Politician", from Cream: Goodbye
We Are a Monthly of Informed Speculation and Whimsy
That mission statement should be pretty much self-explanatory. The blog contents are ordered by month; what's posted intra-month is provisional. After the month is over (plus a couple of days), I generally won't go back and change what's out there (if I do, I'll put it in a comment).
We Have a Record, but We're Not Breaking Any
Our goals are fairly modest: express ourselves on the subjects we choose, clarify our thinking, hopefully persuade a few people around the margins. We welcome dialogue, though few have chosen to sully the pristine contents of our pages with their inputs. In particular, we'd love for readers to point out our past errors--and correct analysis and predictions, if any--and any inconsistencies. We may try a bit more self-promotion in other forums to try to bring in more readers, but just doing this blog is pretty heavy promotion of self, as it is.
*Shameless namedropping, yes: Last I heard, Biglari was the head of McKinsey's financial practice, but this was his first consultancy project. I praise his success, and hope he hasn't gotten himself into too much trouble these days.
We Are Not the News
The main problem with trying to do news here is that we don't have the time to provide immediate, fact-checked reporting. We will take our time, think once or twice, research as much as we need to do to feel right about what we're writing, and do exactly as much editing as we want. So don't expect me to be all over the latest event.
Much less are we going to be a local news reporter; we have too little appreciation for the trade, and much too much respect for the local powers of retribution. Crime and punishment, real estate development, and the tourism trade are three subjects we cannot abide, and that will eliminate 90% of any local stories, anyway. As for the others, they're probably in litigation, or else, in the case of the scandal called our public schools, I have no information beyond what's in the local newspaper.
We Are Not In Anyone's PocketWe aren't offered, nor are we taking, any ads, any sponsorship of any kind. We can endorse people, policies, artistic endeavors, articles, or sports teams for that matter, but we'll do it because that's what we want, not because of any binding agreements or requirements. We aren't getting paid.
We Ain't the Elements of Style
I always hated Strunk and White, and this is part of my revenge. Yes, there are typos here and there, and passive voice, and sentence fragments. We're trying to write like people talk (not "as people talk")--OK, how educated people talk. The typos have increased, no doubt, as we moved from desktop with large monitor to the Dell Inspiron Mini (see if you can guess when!) It's a small price to pay, though, as I see it, which is with the laptop perched on my lap, feet up, in the easy chair, in front of the TV: I'll spend a lot more time with the blog, so hopefully a net benefit to all.
These Are Our Politics
I remember shooting the breeze late one work evening (would've been about 1994) with Hamid Biglari (physicist of Afghan background, turned finance guru)*--for some reason he asked me to characterize my politics, and I said "Utopian Progressive". He thought that was pretty amusing--first, that a guy in banking could be so far from the mainstream, second that I would admit it.
I supported the re-branding of liberals as "progressives" in later years: they needed to get rid of that late-19th-century ball-and-chain. That doesn't mean that I'm comfortable with them in my camp, though. What we share, hopefully, is an understanding that the arc of human destiny is away from the struggle-then-die mode which has characterized most peoples' lives for most of our history (and prehistory), toward something presumably better for more of us, more of the time.
Our politics are, and intend always to be in this blog, guided by three principles: internationalist, futurist, and humanist. With regard to the first, it's not about globalization of trade--which may be a useful tool for development, but is not the objective in itself. We aim to take the broad view, the long view, and to put the course of the collective project of humanity above all else. Feel free to hold me to this.
Yes, we're one of those big, nasty "secular humanists" your pastor may have warned you about. Hey now baby, get into my big black car/ I wanna just show you/ What my politics are.
"Politician", from Cream: Goodbye
We Are a Monthly of Informed Speculation and Whimsy
That mission statement should be pretty much self-explanatory. The blog contents are ordered by month; what's posted intra-month is provisional. After the month is over (plus a couple of days), I generally won't go back and change what's out there (if I do, I'll put it in a comment).
We Have a Record, but We're Not Breaking Any
Our goals are fairly modest: express ourselves on the subjects we choose, clarify our thinking, hopefully persuade a few people around the margins. We welcome dialogue, though few have chosen to sully the pristine contents of our pages with their inputs. In particular, we'd love for readers to point out our past errors--and correct analysis and predictions, if any--and any inconsistencies. We may try a bit more self-promotion in other forums to try to bring in more readers, but just doing this blog is pretty heavy promotion of self, as it is.
*Shameless namedropping, yes: Last I heard, Biglari was the head of McKinsey's financial practice, but this was his first consultancy project. I praise his success, and hope he hasn't gotten himself into too much trouble these days.
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
Make It So: Oh-Ten
The other day I spotted a Talking Head referring to both "Oh-nine and oh-ten". A minute or two later, he had another opportunity to say it, but caught himself and said, paraphrasing here, "oh-nine and two-thousand-ten", awkwardly. Clearly, he had become aware in the intervening moments of his error and wanted to say it the right way.
I think he had it right the first time. All that debate we used to have about whether this decade would be referred to as the "oughts" or "zeroes" or whatever has subsided in favor of the "O's"--this is the "O Decade", as last year's election should have made abundantly clear.
So, "o-eight", "o-nine", "o-ten"--I like it, but why stop there?--"o-eleven", and so on until we get to twenty. I dig it.
After all, it's not a mistake: if you take the initial 2 for granted, it's a legitimate way of looking at the date--a long term view that goes beyond a mere century as the frame of reference. After all, we are going to need to refer to the carbon dioxide level of "oh-seventy" for quite a while (after we have to put back our net global reduction targets from "ofifty" (my preferred spelling).
I think he had it right the first time. All that debate we used to have about whether this decade would be referred to as the "oughts" or "zeroes" or whatever has subsided in favor of the "O's"--this is the "O Decade", as last year's election should have made abundantly clear.
So, "o-eight", "o-nine", "o-ten"--I like it, but why stop there?--"o-eleven", and so on until we get to twenty. I dig it.
After all, it's not a mistake: if you take the initial 2 for granted, it's a legitimate way of looking at the date--a long term view that goes beyond a mere century as the frame of reference. After all, we are going to need to refer to the carbon dioxide level of "oh-seventy" for quite a while (after we have to put back our net global reduction targets from "ofifty" (my preferred spelling).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
