The Haymarket Prism

Truth: Stranger than Fiction?

2009-05-21T14:54:00.004-04:00

Here's a quick test: Only 1 of the following headlines is from the Onion - the other 2 are from NPR. Can you spot the spoof?

1. Prayer may re-shape your Brain

2. Israeli Prime Minister debuts new roadmap for continued strife

3. Sex offenders forced to live under Miami bridge

Score two for reality.

Taxes

2009-04-15T09:39:00.009-04:00

In the spirit of the day, I will engage in some subject-matter rhetorical musing...

There has been a lot of talk recently about taxes - specifically, how our Democratic leadership will over-tax us. I decided that a short look at the tax situation would be in order.

Everyone has heard the mewling that the top 20% pays 70% of the taxes, usually something like this:

Picture an upside-down pyramid with its narrow tip at the bottom and its base on top. The only way the pyramid can stand is by spinning fast enough or by having a wide enough tip so it won't fall down. The federal version of this spinning top is the tax code; the government collects its money almost entirely from the people at the narrow tip and then gives it to the people at the wider side. So long as the pyramid spins, the system can work. If it slows down enough, it falls...A very small number of taxpayers -- the 10% of the country that makes more than $92,400 a year -- pay 72.4% of the nation's income taxes. They're the tip of the triangle that's supporting virtually everyone and everything. Their burden keeps getting heavier.

BTW- just so we are all clear, the author of that article - Ari Fleischer - was George W. Bush's press secretary. hmmm...

So, let's take a look at this - and listen to the stuff that Ari seems to forget:

Income taxes do tilt upward. But they're the progressive bit of the federal tax wedge. Other federal taxes, like the payroll tax and the excise tax, are not progressive. (And we're not even going to get into state income, which are frequently regressive) That's why CBO calculates something called the "effective federal tax rate." The EFTR is simply a households’ federal tax liability divided by its income. The four taxes that are included in the measure are the income, payroll, excise, and corporate taxes. And they give us a pretty good idea of whether the rich really are overpaying. The following graph matches each income quintile's effective federal tax rate with its percentage of the national income. See if you think the rich are getting a bad deal...

When you look at percentage of total tax liabilities, the rich do in fact bear a heavier burden. But it's because they have so much more money. They are not bearing a heavier burden as a percentage of their incomes. They're bearing it in relation to everyone else's incomes. Indeed, it's only because the sheer levels of income inequality in this country are frankly unintuitive that Fleischer can even write this sort of dreck. People hear that the top 20 percent pay almost 70 percent of the country's income taxes and nod their head. That's unfair! But it mainly seems unfair because people don't know the top 20 percent accounts for almost 60 percent of the national income.

Wow, seems pretty obvious... Is it?

Something worth noting, I think is the source of the dis-continuity that seems to exist in the upper 20%. How could they be so much higher? For a definition of these quintiles, we turn to the census bureau:

Notice that the floor for the top 20% is around $88k. However, the floor for the top 5% is over $157k, which means that 80% of the top quintile makes between $88k and $157k. Taxing this group the same was as the top 5% seems a bit punitive. Therefore, as has been suggested many times before, an additional partition for the top 5% of earners seems appropriate. This is further augmented by a review of historical income growth, where the top 5% seem to have a distinct advantage again.

So, the real question becomes, should taxation be income-based or wealth-based? In order to explain the question, consider the reality of marginal utility: 10% of a million dollars in income - $100K - is worth less to the person with that income than 10% of $10K - just $1K - is worth to the person with that income (in terms of living necessities, etc). This is to say that, given a certain minimum income necessary for survival (call it "minimum wage", although this is a completely separate and equally volatile topic), the wealth above that minimum is (should be?) taxed separately from the wealth below that line. I think that most people would consider this "fair", because income above the survival threshold is essentially disposable - used for bigger houses, cars, TV's and all other manner of self-indulgence.

So, is it necessary for taxation to be "fair"? Most would say it is, but many others are un-concerned with "fairness". They focus on poverty and living conditions, or on economic growth and prosperity. Who is to say which is right?

Personally, I feel that the perception of "fairness" is an important part of the American psyche. This is easily demonstrated with the following experiment:

2 people are randomly selected from a group. The leader hands the first $10 in $1 bills. He is told that he can give anywhere between $0 and $10 to the second person, and then he can keep the rest. The catch? If the second person rejects the offering, the $10 is taken back by the leader.

Question: How much should the first person give the second?

If you said $5, you have helped to prove the "fairness" requirement. Most people give this answer. In fact, if the second person is offered a smaller amount, say $1, he will often reject the offer. Although he is losing out on $1, he has punished the first person $9 for being "unfair". He has essentially paid to punish this lack of fairness.

By contrast, if 2 computers play this game, the first computer always offers $1 and the second computer always accepts, because the second computer is better off with $1 than with $0, even if the first computer ends up with $9.

In a similar way, the tax code is (should be?) structured to promote this sense of fairness. not surprisingly, fairness is defined differently depending on which end of the scale one sits. The top 5% consider a flat percentage to be "fair", even though the inequity in disposable income is immense. Conversely, the bottom quintile favor progressive taxation, even though it means that the top 5% will pay a dis-proportionate percentage.

So, who is right?

Credit Crisis Explained

2009-02-20T14:02:00.004-05:00

If you still don't get it (and most don't), this guy will explain. Well....

The Crisis of Credit Visualized from Jonathan Jarvis on Vimeo.

Where it all Went Wrong

2009-02-02T13:18:00.003-05:00

Over the last few months, I have been reviewing my thoughts on capitalsim and its effects. For those that have read, I have talked before about the dis-association between the growth in the economy and an individual's well-being, the desire and ability to turn different working groups against each other, whether we are really better off now than before, crazy (suspicious) real eatate price growth, and a few other topics I can't seem to recall at the moment. This all leads to a discussion of the failings of the current "capitalist" system. However, yesterday I found this interview with - who else - Noam Chomsky. He had some very interesting things to say on the subject:

Keynes regarded speculation as destructive. His basic insight is well described by Indian economist Prabhat Patnaik, at the UN conference of October 30 on the global financial crisis. Patnaik explains that Keynes "had located the fundamental defect of the free market system in its incapacity to distinguish between `speculation' and `enterprise.' Hence, it had a tendency to be dominated by speculators, interested not in the long-term yield on assets but only in the short-term appreciation in asset values. Their whims and caprices, causing sharp swings in asset prices, determined the magnitude of productive investment and, therefore, the level of aggregate demand, employment and output in the economy. The real lives of millions of people were determined by the whims of 'a bunch of speculators' under the free market system." The replacement of governmental "demand management" by "bubble booms" created by speculators is a prime cause of the current financial crisis, Patnaik argues plausibly, supporting Keynes's analysis.

The difference between "speculation" and "enterprise"..... hmmm.

"Originalism" Applied

2009-01-25T10:11:00.006-05:00

Most folks know about the oft-publicized faux paus during Obama's recitation of the Oath of Office. Now, although a normal human being may find this only marginally comical, some so-called "Originalists" must be petitioning the Supreme Court at this very moment, attempting to invalidate the 44th president.

As absurd as this may sound, it's not entirely made up. In order to elucidate the point, I direct your attention to this parody. It contains the "logic". I will re-post it in its entirety for 2 reasons; 1) because it made me giggle truthfully several times, and 2) since I have complete editorial control of this site, I have given myself permission...

I know what you are saying: Didn't Barack Obama and John Roberts repeat the oath of office before the cameras on Wednesday?They did. But it makes absolutely no difference. Barack Obama is still not President and may not execute the powers of that office.To begin with, it is completely clear that Obama did not recite the oath prescribed in the Constitution at his inauguration on Tuesday. Article II, section 7 provides:

7. Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

At Roberts' suggestion, Obama placed the word "faithfully" after the word "States." This should make no difference, you may say. But no, the text of the oath is prescribed in the Constitution and it may not be varied in any way in order to be legally effective. Anyone who says differently does not understand what it means to have a written constitution.

Do you mean to suggest, for example, that Obama could add the words "hey nonny nonny and a hot cha cha" in the middle of the oath and it would be equally effective? Can he add the words "only if I feel like it" at the end of the oath? Surely you jest! And if your position is that he can make any changes he wants as long as they do not materially alter the oath, who is to decide whether the changes are material or not? That is why we have a written constitution, a Constitution that makes clear that he shall say just these words, and no others.

Obama's attempt at a re-do makes no difference. The well-known doctrine of the Unitary Executive suggests that the President-elect gets one shot at taking the oath correctly. If he flubs it, that's it! He can't execute the powers of his office. After all, Unitary means "one." Clearly if the President could take the oath repeatedly, he wouldn't be very Unitary, now would he?

Suppose, however, that one rejects this utterly compelling argument based on the sacred and indisputable doctrine of the Unitary Executive. Obama's do-over still fails. That is because Obama callously deleted words from the oath and added words that are not in the Constitutional text. Surely if he may not move the word "faithfully" around in the text he may also not add or delete words either.

In this case, Obama added the words "Barack Hussein Obama" after the word "I" and "So help me God" at the end of the oath. Furthermore, he deleted the words "(or affirm)."

The mind boggles at this display of utter lawlessness. How could Obama and Chief Justice Roberts engage in such blatant editing of the sacred constitutional text? Can't they just read the words of the Constitution without editorializing? It is precisely this hubris on the part of judges and politicians that leads to the dreaded disease of "living constitutionalism," in which government officials add words to the constitutional text that aren't there and delete words that they find inconvenient. It is simply outrageous that both Roberts and Obama feel that they must flaunt their living constitutionalism before our very eyes in their faux Presidential oath of office!

But you may object, no president since George Washington himself has read the constitutional text verbatim since the founding of the Republic. They have all inserted their names into the text in a raw display of egotism, and then added the words "So help me God." In addition, all the Presidents have deleted the words "or affirm" with two exceptions, when a President-elect deleted the words "swear" and "or." If the addition and deletion of words in the oath makes the oath ineffective, you may argue, no President has ever legitimately executed his office.

To which I say, so what? Are we a government of laws or a government of men? Do we have a written constitution that is the supreme law of the land or do we simply have a set of suggestions that can be cavalierly discarded whenever they would offend the sensibilities of a President-elect? The Constitution's text is clear. It is up to us to follow it with blind and mindless obedience. If a President-elect cannot read a simple text faithfully without editorializing, he doesn't deserve to be the President. And if no President has been able to resist thinking he knows better, then none of them have lawfully acted as our nation's Chief Executive.

But, you may object, didn't Barack Obama became President anyway on noon of Inauguration day, because of the 20th amendment? Of course not. The text of the 20th amendment is perfectly clear on this point:

1. The terms of the President and the Vice-President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3rd day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

It is obvious to any schoolchild that the phrase "the terms of their successors" refers to the terms of Senators and Representatives, and not to the terms of the President and Vice-President. That is because an all important comma separates the two clauses. Moreover, the Twentieth Amendment did not explicitly repeal the Oath Clause of Article III, and it is clear from this clause that the President cannot begin to execute the powers of his office until he takes the oath.

I am sure that many people wish that the President could edit the oath of office however he likes, for example, adding his own name and the words "so help me God." But these people do not understand what it means to have a government founded on a written constitution. Perhaps the failure of Barack Obama to become President, and the crisis that ensues, will serve as a lesson to them to hew more closely to the genius of our founding fathers.

Lol... Can't people understand the clear meaning of the Constitution?? Must it always be explained??

This parody includes many topics that I have mentioned before, such as the legal significance of comma placement and the status of originalism with respect to US law. The interesting thing is to read the response from a self-described "originalist" - and usually a moderately decent guy - Michael Stokes Paulsen. His response is here:

Touche! I greatly enjoyed Jack Balkin's skewering of strict textualism and formalism ("Why Barack Obama Still Isn't President"), even though I am an apostle of these methods. Alas, I was hoping Jack was serious. But sadly (for the house conservative), I must concede that Barack Obama lawfully holds, and properly could "enter on the execution of" the Office of President of the United States.

Reeling, knocked to the ground by Jack's devestating demolition of originalist textualism, struggling to pick myself up, and depressed generally, I am driven by desperation to suggest some saving constructions for originalist methodology.

Is it possible, for example, for a departure from the Constitution to be a real, actual departure from the Constitution (understood according to its original public linguistic meaning) but yet be of no constitutional consequence? Is there a (legitimate) doctrine of "harmless constitutional error"?...

Perhaps, for additions, rather than deletions, a better term would be extra-constitutional, so long as what is added does not subtract or detract from what remains. George Washington's traditional addition "so help me God" does not so much "violate" the Oath Clause (we will save for another day whether it violates the Establishment Clause) as add something of his own -- a little presidential speech, as it were, no different in principle from the giving of an Inaugural Address (which also goes beyond the Constitution's requirements). So too, "hey nonny nonny and a hot cha cha" adds something -- akin to Inaugural balls and parties. If it subtracts anything, it subtracts dignity and gravitas. It does not subtract from the oath.

The accidental rearrangement of "faithfully" strikes me as a deviation from the Constitution that does not subtract or detract from the oath.

But for the sake of argument let's call the deviation "unconstitutional." What is the legal effect of this constitutional violation? Can a violation of the Constitution ever be "harmless," in the sense that it does not matter to anything? I, too, along with a fearful nation, was greatly relieved that the oath was, later, faithfully executed. But even a pig-headed formalist (like me) thinks that some "violations" of the Constitution simply are not material. They do not affect constitutional powers or privileges in any way.

Apparently, the purported death of Republican humor has been (only) slightly exaggerated. Paulson absorbs the hit almost with comedic grace. Then, however, he sets off explaining how the parody is almost accurate... the "originalist" then starts discussing something truly spooky - how violating the Constitution may be "not material"?? Holy crap, we argue more or less forever about the legal significance of particular words and punctuation, and then we decide that the resulting interpretation is immaterial?

Sounds awfully progressive to me...

The Biggest Story That's Not on TV

2008-12-16T04:49:00.002-05:00

In the midst of typical foolishness in American politics - the selling and/or nepotizing of senate seats and fears of economic meltdown - there is a monumental story that has barely seen the light of day. Consider this post my flashlight.

On December 11, a bi-partisan congressional committee released this report regarding the use of torture and the complicity of the President and other seinor staffers. In order for this to sink in, we must return to 2004, and the graphic and disturbing images from Abu Ghraib:

If you don't remember, this is Lynndie England, an American soldier who has borne the brunt - not to mention a huge prison sentence - of being one of a "few bad apples". However, the new report - written by 13 Democrats and 12 Republicans without a single dessent - says:

The abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib in late 2003 was not simply the result of a few soldiers acting on their own. Interrogation techniques such as stripping detainees of their clothes, placing them in stress positions, and using military working dogs to intimidate them appeared in Iraq only after they had been approved for use in Afghanistan and at [Guantanamo]. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's December 2, 2002 authorization of aggressive interrogation techniques and subsequent interrogation policies and plans approved by senior military and civilian officials conveyed the message that physical pressures and degradation were appropriate treatment for detainees in U.S. military custody. What followed was an erosion in standards dictating that detainees be treated humanely.

Also, Remember comments made by the President?

Bush, on May 24, 2004, described what happened at Abu Ghraib as "disgraceful conduct by a few American troops who dishonored our country and disregarded our values."
On June 1, 2004, he told a reporter: "Obviously, it was a shameful moment when we saw on our TV screens that soldiers took it upon themselves to humiliate Iraqi prisoners -- because it doesn't reflect the nature of the American people, or the nature of the men and women in our uniform. And what the world will see is that we will handle this matter in a very transparent way, that there will be rule of law -- which is an important part of any democracy. And there will be transparency, which is a second important part of a democracy. And people who have done wrong will be held to account for the world to see.
"That will stand -- this process will stand in stark contrast to what would happen under a tyrant. You would never know about the abuses in the first place. And if you did know about the abuses, you certainly wouldn't see any process to correct them."

LIAR!

Just look at the self-righteous indignation of the Republican shills. First, Glenn Reynolds:

Of course, it's not the same as Saddam's torture -- which was a matter of top-down policy, not the result of a**holes who deserve jail or execution, and will probably get one or both. As with other reported misbehavior, it should be dealt with very, very harshly. But those who would -- as Senator Kerry did after Vietnam -- make such behavior emblematic of our effort, instead of recognizing it as an abandonment of our principles -- are mere opportunists.

"Jail or execution"? I have yet to hear Reynolds call for either of this for Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. A whole bunch of his buddies recite a similar sermon. Specifically, NRO's Jonah Goldberg, Republican hack extrordinaire, is in piety mode as well:

Even if all of these pictures were staged this would be an outrage. The fact that they are real makes this staggeringly awful. The awfulness is twofold. First, there's the illegal, morally corrupt -- and corrupting -- evil of torturing people for the pleasure of it (and taking pictures of it!). Second, there's the counter-productive stupidity of it. Even if these guys were the worst henchmen of Saddam's torture chambers, the damage this does to the image of America is huge. How do we look when we denounce Saddam's torture chambers now? How many more American soldiers will be shot because of the ill will and outrage this generates? How do we claim to be champions of the rule of law?

Well, there is one way. This needs to be investigated and prosecuted. If there's more to the story -- whatever that could conceivably be -- let's find out. But if the story is as it appears, there has to be accountability, punishment and disclosure. Indeed, even if this turned out to be a prank, too much damage has already been done and someone needs to be punished.
Under Saddam torturers were rewarded and promoted. In America they must be held to account.

I see. Now that is beyond doubt that the President and his pals were involved, let's look for a demand for "accountability, punishment and disclosure".

Wait for it.....

Still waiting...

Well, you get the idea.

What we get instead is a veritable cacaphony of excuses for the White House Gang:

What would Mr. Obama do? After all, if we’d gotten our hands on a senior member of Al Qaeda before 9/11, and knew that an attack likely to kill thousands of Americans was imminent, wouldn’t waterboarding, or taking advantage of the skills of our Jordanian friends, have been the sensible, moral thing to do with a holy warrior who didn’t fear death but might have feared pain?

Hmmm... Maybe Glenn Reynolds can explain his thoughts?

The people in government who made mistakes or who acted in ways that seemed reasonable at the time but now seem inappropriate have been held publicly accountable by severe criticism, suffering enormous reputational and, in some instances, financial losses. Little will be achieved by further retribution.

Well then - does ANYONE care about this stuff? The zealotous moral compasses of the Republican party haven't done much:

WARREN - Well, and you know what - some of the stuff I saw looking at Guantanamo looks like clearly it was torture. To me, if you torture someone, you put yourself no better than the enemy. We must maintain the moral highground. You have no right to condemn the immoral actions of others if we're doing the same thing. And we should expect that others will torture our people if we're torturing them.
BELIEFNET- Did you ever talk to President Bush to try to convince him to change his policy?
WARREN - No. No.
BELIEFNET- Why not?
WARREN -- Never got the chance. I just didn't. In fact, in the first place, I'm a pastor, and people might misunderstand - I don't deal with policy issues with Barack Obama or President Clinton or John McCain. I just don't. that's not my role. My role is to pastor these guys. As a leader I understand stress.

He says torture is deeply immoral and that the Bush administration did appear to torture - but declines to describe the Bush policy as a moral failing. He says he didn't mention his views on torture because (implausibly) he didn't have the opportunity. Then he said it was inappropriate for him to raise it with Bush because he only offers spiritual support. ...But if he weighs in on behalf of some caues -- opposing gay marriage and abortion, for instance -- then he can't well say it would have been inappropriate to campaign harder against torture.

The Democrats dont seem to care either:

UPDATE: Here -- from July of this year -- is one of the more remarkable quotes of the Bush era; it's from Nancy Pelosi, who was explicitly briefed on the CIA's torture program in 2002:

Q: You’ve ruled against impeaching George Bush and Dick Cheney, and now Kucinich is trying to pass that. Why do you insist on not impeaching these people, so that the world and America can really see the crimes that they’ve committed?

PELOSI: I thought that impeachment would be divisive for the country. . . . If somebody had a crime that the President had committed, that would be a different story.

It's not like there's any evidence that Bush committed any crimes or anything, said Pelosi.

Sigh... Greenwald goes on:

Just ponder the uproar if, in any other country, the political parties joined together and issued a report documenting that the country's President and highest aides were directly responsible for war crimes and widespread detainee abuse and death. Compare the inevitable reaction to such an event if it happened in another country to what happens in the U.S. when such an event occurs -- a virtual media blackout, ongoing fixations by political journalists with petty scandals, and an undisturbed consensus that, no matter what else is true, high-level American political figures (as opposed to powerless low-level functionaries) must never be held accountable for their crimes.

Never. Cheney still isn't even worried about it:

KARL: Did you authorize the tactics that were used against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?
CHENEY: I was aware of the program, certainly, and involved in helping get the process cleared, as the agency, in effect, came in and wanted to know what they could and couldn't do. And they talked to me, as well as others, to explain what they wanted to do. And I supported it.
KARL: In hindsight, do you think any of those tactics that were used against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others went too far?
CHENEY: I don't.
KARL: And on KSM, one of those tactics, of course, widely reported was waterboarding. And that seems to be a tactic we no longer use. Even that you think was appropriate?
CHENEY: I do.

And why should he worry? It's not as though anyone cares.

Financial Crisis and Inveitability

2008-09-25T09:48:00.004-04:00

I feel that is high time that I commented on the biggest debacle of my life - the financial crisis. To date, we have seen the massive failure of Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac, Lehman Brothers, and AIG - with possibly more to come. We are in the midst of determining whether or not to bailout AIG and their financial brethren. Through all of this most people seem genuinely surprised at this outcome. I, for one, am not.

The tailspin of the US - and therefore the worldwide - financial markets began in a frighteningly familiar way. Corporations, under intense pressure to continually grow their businesses at a level far above inflation, are continually searching for new markets and opportunities. In the lending sector, the typical business model more or less follows a simple description: Financial institutions lend money to home buyers, and then sell securities on the market that are backed by the expected future income stream generated by the mortgage payments from the home buyers. Implicit in this system is as assumed rate of default, usually (and hopefully) a fairly small percentage of the loans given.

This business model has been very successful, but certain lenders wanted more. They realized that there were many potential home buyers that had not taken out mortgages due to various "risk factors", or due to the fact that their current financial situation did not warrant a large loan. These lenders knew that approving loans to these higher risk borrowers would result in a much higher projected income stream, which would mean more securities to sell.

Everyone with a mailbox or an e-mail account knows what happened next: hundreds of thousands of people were "pre-approved" to borrow huge sums of money for homes that they could not possibly afford. I personally remember being "pre-approved" for a loan that was almost 6 times my annual salary. Fortunately, I knew enough math to reasonably understand that I could never afford such a loan, and did not take the bait. For many others, however, the offer was not to be ignored. They saddled themselves with massive mortgage debt, secure in the fact that it was OK because they were "pre-approved". Mortgage and re-financing sales sky-rocketed, and the revenues of the lenders grew by leaps and bounds.

Meanwhile, in the securities market, fund managers began to take notice of the massive increase in the potential income of the mortgage lenders. They started filling their mutual funds with mortgage-back securities, and sat back to watch their funds grow at 4-5 times inflation. The housing market was booming, and executives at places like AIG and Lehman Brothers were making millions in executive compensation. The mutual fund and hedge fund executives were making millions as well in executive compensation. The massive market potential and the need to show massive growth lead to perverse accounting practices at places like Fannie Mae, but since there was enough money to go around, nobody seemed to mind.

Like all things that are too good to be true, however, this financial paradise could not last. The massive and ever-widening gap between the projected income stream of mortgage-backed securities and the actual income stream became impossible to hide. Excessive default from the high-risk mortgages made the income projections on which the securities sales were based highly suspect. As consumer confidence eroded, the value of mortgage-backed securities began to plummet. Due to the high value of the mortgage industry, and the penetration of mortgage-backed securities in the mutual fund market, the entire financial sector began to feel the pain. Many lenders followed their loanees into bankruptcy. The entire system teeters on the brink of collapse. A fairly amusing, yet dangerously accurate portrayal of the whole event is here.

How could this have been allowed?

The fact is that this happens all the time in the US "free market economy", but usually to a lesser degree of severity. In the 1980's, the S&L disaster followed suspiciously similar lines. The S&L companies had been offering small loans to private consumers, and doing a fairly good business. However, as their growth began to slow, they started looking elsewhere for new markets. The "answer" presented itself in the form of commercial real estate. the S&L's began dealing in commercial real estate in the same way they had previously dealt with residential properties, resulting in a huge increase in expected income. Fund managers latched onto this growth in the same way as described above, and similar securities backed by equally dubious income streams found their way into most American portfolios. Then, as now, the difference between expected cash and actual cash eventually broke the S&L industry, and many average investors lost lots of money. The S&L executives and fund managers, however, got rich quickly.

As if this weren't enough, the same basic story can be found in the .com bust of 2000. The future value of most of the new-fangled ".com" companies was ridiculously over-stated, creating a massive gap between perceived value and actual value. Financially savvy leaders exploited this perceived value to sell huge amounts of stock at enormously inflated prices. Needless to say, another small group of people in corporate leadership and investment management got rich. Regular investors, meanwhile, lost billions when the bubble finally burst.

The fact that this same basic mechanism could have manifested itself in the financial markets so many times should provide some insight as to the mechanics of the "free market" economy and "capitalist" institutions. Executive leaders are expected to show massive gains year over year. If they do, they will be rewarded with huge compensation packages. Fund managers are similarly expected to create huge returns, and are rewarded richly as well. This necessitates risk-taking on the part of the executives in order to achieve the needed growth. Fortunately for these executives, the risk of failure is nearly non-existent. If the risks taken prove to be disastrous (as they have recently), the executive has already received the massive compensation package for the earlier perceived growth. He is under no obligation to give it back. By the time the mistake is fully manifested, the risk has been diluted in the securities market and spread across all those who hold the securities backed by the now-defunct income stream. If it gets really bad, we can always declare bankruptcy or appeal to the government for a bailout. So it is all reward, and no risk, for the executives - assuming they are willing to paint their "risks" in the best possible light; treading the line of legality, and certainly intentionally deceiving the investing public. All reward, and no risk, if only we tell a little white lie... how can an executive resist? We have seen the executive compensation debate before, but this Fannie Mae compensation paper bears review...

Chomsky, of course, offers the best insight:

The unprecedented intervention of the Fed may be justified or not in narrow terms, but it reveals, once again, the profoundly undemocratic character of state capitalist institutions, designed in large measure to socialise cost and risk and privatize profit, without a public voice.

This "socialize cost and privatize profit" mentality is the common thread that connects the S&L crisis of the 1980's, the ".com" bubble of the 1990's, and the financial crisis of 2008. This is our system. This is how it works - always has.

So, will this crisis change it? Not likely. As the American public, we are now going to pay for the unpunished mistakes of the financial elite - whether through a tax-funded bailout or through a catastrophic collapse in the investment market, this crisis will hit us all in the wallet. We are asking for an explanation, a recovery plan, and reform.

We will get none of them.

The "why?" has been asked many times. As always, the survey result is in the eyes of the question-asker. The average person has no idea what has even transpired, let alone what should be done about it. No doubt that, bailout or no bailout, we will be told that the decision has the support of the American people, and we will be shown surveys that seem to prove it. So, no explanation.

As for the recovery plan: We are being asked for $700 billion dollars. If you are like me, you are no doubt wondering how it is possible that the financial folks could have arrived at that number so darn quickly. Are they really that smart? Nope:

We just wanted to choose a really large number...

Wow. I feel much better now.

Is oversight/regulation in our future? Really, what's the point? The system will still work to "socialize cost and privatize profit" - oops, I mean Capitalism. And, a terrible thing is regulation.. or "Socialism", as the Republicans - and to only a slightly lesser extent the Democrats as well - will cry... and the average citizen will believe them, because we have been taught to fear and abhor the dreaded Socialists so much that merely invoking the dreaded name is enough to send many Americans into convulsions of irrational fear - perfect for suggestion.

So, the financial markets are broken, the regulatory bodies are dysfunctional, the leaders of the recovery plan are pulling "really large numbers" out of thin air.. and we are told - "Trust Us".

So, let's find the $700B, eh? Ironically, we already have it - really, it's true. On September 24, the House passed a $612B defense authorixzation bill. That's right... $612B for "defense":

The whole bill passed by a vote of 392-39 and will fly through the Senate, where a similar bill has already been approved. And no one will even think to mention it in the same breath with the discussion of bailout funds for dying investment banks and the like.

I'm converting what little money I have left into gold and sewing it into my mattress tonight.

The Confusing World - It's Boring Too

2008-08-18T23:11:00.012-04:00

I haven't been posting a lot recently - that's obvious. There are so many things going on that I should have plenty of fodder. The problem is, I don't understand most of it.

I guess the biggest deal is the Russia-Georgia conflict. I don't get it. I mean, I have read all the propaganda about Cold War stuff - you know, this crap from McCain?

"My friends, we have reached a crisis, the first probably serious crisis internationally since the end of the Cold War. This is an act of aggression"??? Oh my God.

Of course, it could be that something else entirely is going on - watch this farce of a news report on Fox:

Geez, didn't that girl get the memo?

What else is making (yawn) news these days? Oh yeah - did some Viet Cong guard draw a cross in the dirt for McCain at Christmas while he was a POW? My answer: who cares? Lots of people seem to...

The presidential candidates are pandering to the religious sector and blaming the media for anything they can. In the words of Lili Von Shtupp... How Audin-awie.

Musharraf just quit in Pakistan... I guess stability abounds in the Middle East, eh? The surge in Iraq sure was spiffy, and any problems we have with Iran certainly won't improve with our President condemning the Russians and their aggression. My prediction: when the Russians (and most of the rest of the world) finally get done laughing themselves nearly to death over Bush's pathetic hypocrisy, they will tell us where to go...Meanwhile, we worry (with parental-like concern that barely conceals a massive moral superiority complex) about underage gymnasts in the Olympics - even as we turn a blind eye to possibly the most publicized genocide in history:

No genocide has ever been so thoroughly documented while it was taking place. There were certainly no independent film-makers in Auschwitz in 1942, and the best-known Holocaust memoirs did not achieve a wide audience until years after the war. The world more or less looked the other way as genocide unfolded in Cambodia during the 1970s, and the slaughter in Rwanda happened so quickly--a mere hundred days--that by the time the public grasped the extent of the horror, the killing was done. But here is Darfur, whose torments are known to all. The sheer volume of historical, anthropological, and narrative detail available to the public about the genocide is staggering. In the case of the genocide in Darfur, ignorance has never been possible. But the genocide continues.

Maybe I'm supposed to care about all the petty stuff, and I'm just not doing my patriotic duty as I marginalize it. Perhaps the lack of oil and economic potential in Darfur means that the people there are not worthy of consideration.

I'm just not sure why.

Fairy Tales

2008-07-26T12:04:00.005-04:00

Over the past 2 weeks, I have been travelling all over North America, completing various business-related tasks. Upon my return trip from California yesterday, I found that I had exhausted my supply of reading materials. Unwilling to face the proposition of a 4 hour plane flight with nothing to do, I ducked into the airport store to see what was available.

Anyone who has ever shopped in one of these literature-deprived environs will surely sympathize with my dismay at the available selection. Under the heading "Popular Authors", I saw a few "best sellers", none of which I recognized. There were a few random business and self-help books, but nothing I was prepared to dedicate 4 hours of my life to. Reluctantly, I picked up Jim Cramer's (you, know, the stock guy who screams all the time?) new book, and prepared myself to have mediocre investment advice foisted upon me with all the professionalism and subtlety of a train wreck. As I proceeded to the checkout, I happened to catch a glimpse of something much more interesting - it was the unabridged collection of the Chronicles of Narnia by C. S. Lewis. I had read them before, perhaps when I was 8 or 9 years old. However, with the new movies available, and the level of depth that Lewis's writing contains ( I had read Mere Christianity about 10 years ago), I decided to pick it up instead.

Thank God.

I broke into the 760 pages much as I normally do, and a whole flood of memories returned in an instant. The world of Narnia was much as I had remembered it as a child - complete with evil Witches, growing lampposts, and giant lions. However, the advanced frame of reference that comes with both adulthood and an increased overall knowledge base showed the true genius of the saga. Although he wrote it in 1949, Lewis had and excellent understanding of many philosophical concepts. Consider the Witch's self-justification of her actions in The Magician's Nephew:

I had forgotten that you are only a common boy. How should you understand reasons of State? You must learn, child, That what would be wrong for you or any of the common people is not wrong in a great Queen such as I. The weight of the world is on our shoulders. We must be freed from all rules...

How morbidly applicable to our current leadership...

In among all of the weight of this fantasy saga, my greatest revelation came in the form of a dedication that Lewis wrote to his god-daughter, Lucy:

My dear Lucy,

I wrote this story for you, but when I began it I had not realized that girls grow quicker than books. As a result you are already too old for fairy tales, and by the time it is printed and bound you will be older still. But someday you will be old enough to start reading fairy tales again. You can then take it down from some upper shelf, dust it, and tell me what you think of it. I shall probably be too deaf to hear, and too old to understand, a word you say...

Someday you will be old enough to start reading fairy tales again..

This speaks directly to the heart of human growth and development. When we are young, we indulge - and are indulged - in fairy tales, complete with good vs. evil, monsters and angels, Witches and Lions. At some point, we are told to "grow up", and put aside such childish things as fairy tales. The world is a very different place than Narnia, and child-like indulgence is neither societally acceptable, nor is it invited by the budding individual. We fancy ourselves too sophisticated and worldly for such foolishness.

At some later point, when we have established our place in the world and have become comfortable with our lot in life, we are finally "old enough to start reading fairy tales again". It is at this point that only the great stories endure. The legendary complexities of these sagas teach us much about ourselves and about how we would like to be.

I have a 6 month old daughter. As she grows, she will undoubtedly read of Hobbits, Lions, Witches, and Wardrobes - as girls do indeed grow faster than books. She will no doubt have questions about the proverbial birds and the bees. I'm sure that I will - like so many before me - lean on the great heroes as part of my answer. Bilbo Baggins and Aslan the Lion will serve as an example to my daughter at a time when it is her divine right to believe that there is a definable distance between good and evil, and that the good side will always triumph simply by being good. The complexities of the fairy tales will mirror the complexities of life - they will be non-existent for the child, overwhelming for the young adult, and reality for the mature adult. When the time finally arrives for her to be old enough to read fairy tales again, I could very well be too deaf to hear, and too old to understand her thoughts and needs. I may be gone altogether. At that point, I will have to trust the Lion and the Hobbit to continue to provide their legendary direction, if only I have done well enough that she knows how to look for it.

Oil

2008-07-11T10:00:00.004-04:00

There is no shortage of opinion regarding the high gas prices in the US. I'm no economist, but it seems pretty obvious to me that there is a major element of opportunism among commodity speculators and oil companies to take advantage of the current geo-political situation for their own gain. Some folks disagree. This article tries to imply that commodity trading speculators are not the cause of high oil prices:

If speculators aren’t at fault, why have oil prices spiked so high? Fundamental reasons aren’t hard to find. Between 2000 and 2007, world demand for petroleum rose by nearly nine million barrels a day, but OPEC has been consistently unable, or unwilling, to significantly increase supply, and production by non-OPEC members has risen by just four million barrels a day. The prospect of military action against Iran, which would disrupt global supply, seems greater than it did a few years ago. And the plunging value of the dollar has meant that the cost of oil has jumped more in the U.S. in the past year than it has in countries with healthier currencies.

...The price of oil—more than that of many other commodities—isn’t based solely on current supply and demand. It’s also based on people’s expectations about future supply and demand, because those expectations determine whether it makes sense for oil producers to sell their oil now or leave it in the ground and sell it later. Currently, the market is assuming that oil will become scarcer, and that global demand will keep rising, especially in rapidly developing countries like China and India. As a result, producers are asking very high prices to pump their oil. Now, it could be that these assumptions are all wrong—that the supply of oil will not be constricted going forward, that concerns about the Middle East are exaggerated, and that higher prices will lead people to cut back on energy consumption, shrinking demand. In that case, oil would turn out to have been hugely overpriced. But that won’t be because of sinister speculators; it will be because oil producers and oil users collectively misread the future.

All right, I think this says that oil price explosion is not the fault of speculators, but rather the fault of people who "misread the future". Afraid that I was loosing my grip on the English language, I looked up "speculator" at dictionary.com:

a person who is engaged in commercial or financial speculation

Duh...

someone who risks losses for the possibility of considerable gains

Like any investor...

a person who trades (i.e. derivatives, commodities, bonds, equities or currencies) with a higher-than-average risk, in return for a higher-than-average profit potential. Speculators take large risks, especially with respect to anticipating future price movements, or gambling, in the hopes of making quick, large gains.

Wow, so it seems like speculators are attempting to read the future... do they ever "misread" it?

Speculators are typically sophisticated, high risk-taking investors with expertise in the market(s) to which they are trading and will usually use highly leveraged investments such as futures and options

A person who is willing to take large risks and sacrifice the safety of principal in return for potentially large gains.

According to this, the above article argues that it's not the speculators fault, it's the fault of ... speculators. These are all people who are trying to read the future - correctly or not is irrelevant - and invest accordingly. These people are speculators by definition. High volume futures buying will raise the price of any commodity. It is no surprise that some people are trying to manipulate the commodity market to increase the value of their futures. That's what speculators do.

Increased global demand, coupled with a weak dollar, can certainly explain some of the rise in oil prices. The rest of it is easily traced to opportunistic futures traders that are bringing home the proverbial bacon. this is borne out in market analysis itself.

This article reports that, while Exxon-Mobil reported $10.9B in 1st quarter profits, their stock actually went down in value - indicating that those in the financial know think that the company should have done better given the high price of oil:

...weak production volumes and low refining margins blunted the impact of record-high crude prices.

Weak production volumes? I thought we were operating at full capacity, and demand was simply outpacing supply. Quotes from investor-types don't seem to reassuring:

It makes the future seem kind of dire, because this quarter they really got bailed out by high oil prices ...

Oil companies apparently are not running very efficiently.

The company has been criticized by analysts and investors for laying back on capital spending while going full bore on share buybacks..."It seems that they are more of a share buyback machine that also happens to produce energy"...

Boo hoo... oil exploration is so expensive and requires so much capital, but we would rather buy back stock in a short-term profit-taking strategy rather than invest in long term sustainability. Just make sure you keep sending those government subsidies. After all, more subsidies lead to more production, right?

The company said its production shortfall resulted in part from production-sharing contracts that give host countries a larger share of oil and gas produced as commodity prices rise. The decline of older fields and the loss of operations that were nationalized by Venezuela last year also hurt.

Oh, business is so hard, and other country's governments are making life horrible! Thank God the US Government is working on oil's behalf:

A group of American advisers led by a small State Department team played an integral part in drawing up contracts between the Iraqi government and five major Western oil companies to develop some of the largest fields in Iraq, American officials say.

The disclosure, coming on the eve of the contracts’ announcement, is the first confirmation of direct involvement by the Bush administration in deals to open Iraq’s oil to commercial development and is likely to stoke criticism.

At a time of spiraling oil prices, the no-bid contracts, in a country with some of the world’s largest untapped fields and potential for vast profits, are a rare prize to the industry. The contracts are expected to be awarded Monday to Exxon Mobil, Shell, BP, Total and Chevron, as well as to several smaller oil companies.

Exxon-Mobil, eh? Well, what do you know...

Enemy Combatants

2008-07-07T10:39:00.008-04:00

The term is thrown about these days with remarkable vagueness. Its real meaning has been lost, to be replaced by a phantasmic miasma of fear and doubt. I have had a very difficult time understanding the fanatical desire to continue to hold those found innocent, Haynes' "no acquittals" comment, use of the term No Longer Enemy Combatants (NLEC), etc. This should be very easy to summarize: we made a mistake in arresting, detaining, "interrogating", and accusing the particular person in the first place. Why is this so difficult?

Then, I found this:

Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which states:

"Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive."

As contrasted with combatant POWs, who can be transferred out of country, it is a war crime on its face for non-combatants to be shipped like this. Because of the underlying purposes of torture, abuse, murder and depravity that in general accompany shipments of non-combatants, and because of the ease with which evidence of later crimes is then destroyed, this is a war crime that is complete on the shipment, without the hurdle of proving abuse and torture.

That's why the label has been fought over so jealously IMO, and why no finding that someone was not an enemy combatant was allowed (new tribunals were convened in those few instances) and why the preferred term for the "mistakes" was "no longer an enemy combatant."

They needed to preserve the claim that these persons who were bought and sold in human trafficking transactions separate from any battlefield and severed from any evidence of status, were "combatants" when they were shipped, or the war crime is pretty indisputable.

Ah, now we see the problem: if the person was, in fact, NOT a combatant when transferred to Guantanamo, then that forcible transportation constitutes a war crime. If the detainee is found innocent of all charges - obviously then, not a combatant at any time - this presents a huge problem for the government. Hence Haynes' comment:

"I said to (Haynes) that if we come up short and there are some acquittals in our cases, it will at least validate the process."

"At which point, his eyes got wide and he said, 'Wait a minute, we can't have acquittals. If we've been holding these guys for so long, how can we explain letting them get off? . . . We've got to have convictions.'"

If there was ever better evidence of the flimsy legal basis for the rendition program, this seems to be it. This also explains why the government has fought so hard to deny trials to those detained: if they are never found innocent, then the problem never materializes. We know - as does the government - that it is a virtual certainty that at least some of those detained are, in fact, innocent. People like Haynes and John Yoo thought, in their infinite arrogance, that their "plan" to avoid the possibility of having to answer for their actions was air-tight. We are beginning to see otherwise.

The Geneva Convention uses the words it does for very specific reasons:

"Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive."

The "why" of this seems fairly obvious. It seems that the people that wrote the document were not interested in listening to the offending party explain their "motive", since "forcible transfers" are obviously a means of covering up wrong-doing... and doing wrong we have been. By way of this article, and this one, we learn that our "interrogation" techniques have been taken from Chinese interrogation documents:

The military trainers who came to Guantánamo Bay in December 2002 based an entire interrogation class on a chart showing the effects of “coercive management techniques” for possible use on prisoners, including “sleep deprivation,” “prolonged constraint,” and “exposure.”

What the trainers did not say, and may not have known, was that their chart had been copied verbatim from a 1957 Air Force study of Chinese Communist techniques used during the Korean War to obtain confessions, many of them false, from American prisoners.

From JB:

Of course, the chart in question was not copied verbatim at Guantanamo -- the DOD folks had the foresight to make one (and only one) change: They omitted the original title, which was "Communist Coercive Methods for Eliciting Individual Compliance."

Lovely. Why do you think that this would be so?

I've seen lots of commentary on the revelation that Bush administration torture techniques have been modeled on the work of the ChiComs but not much specific focus on the fact that the main purpose of these Chinese torture techniques was to elicit false confessions. That's not very surprising as the main use of torture in interrogations has always been to elicit false confessions.

And why might false confessions be desirable? Oh right, Haynes and his "no acquittals" again...

But we don't torture, right? The techniques we use aren't torture - no, no. And luckily for us, some others agree with us. For instance, Vietnam never used torture either - isn't that great? So, when John McCain was a POW in Vietnam, none of the stuff done to him was torture. Apparently, I'm not the only one to notice this dichotomy:

How is it possible to know that everything John McCain once said on videotape for the enemy was false, because it was coerced, and yet assert that everything we torture out of terror suspects using exactly the same techniques, is true?

If this seems like something straight out of a bad movie, I agree - except this is real, and we are doing it.

Nothing more accurately exposes the classic moral error of the Bush administration and its enablers in war crimes. If the enemy tortures, it defines their moral evil and all intelligence gleaned from such coercion is self-evidently false propaganda. If we do it, it isn't wrong, and it leads to good intelligence.

No, it's not a joke, and it's not a movie - it's something much scarier.

It's called reality.

Heller

2008-06-27T09:47:00.005-04:00

The Supreme Court has ruled on the Washington DC gun case - Heller. It appears that the right to own a handgun in Washington DC is constitutionally protected. This result, as well as the 5-4 vote, comes as no surprise since Republicans (not conservatives or "Originalists") hold the controlling majority on the Court right now. The ironic part of the decision is neatly summarized by this post:

In the Boumediene decision a few weeks back, Justice Scalia argued that the majority's decision giving Guantanamo detainees a right to a judicial hearing would cost American lives. One could probably say the same thing of Justice Scalia's majority opinion in Heller. After all, if you lift the ban on handguns in the District of Columbia, it's entirely possible that some additional people will be killed as a result.

...Yet in both Heller and Boumediene, the majorities (one conservative, the other liberal) blithely disregard stern warnings from the dissent that know-it-all elitist judges will cost American lives.

This is the bitter irony that is today's Supreme Court. If one tries to read the 157 page majority opinion, or the dissent, they will find a myriad of references to arcane historical events. Stuart kings references feature prominently in the majority opinion. The effect of historical relevance, to my mind, plays absolutely no part in this debate. If it did, we would need to incorporate the realities of the 18th century, where almost everyone carried a gun and frequently used them to settle disputes in the street - likely legally, I might add. I assume the Court does not expect to replace modern jurisprudence with Code duello any time soon, so the historical context of the legal analysis breaks down almost from the outset.

In terms of a useful opinion, I find both sides to be lacking. Scalia spends an inordinate amount of time paying homage to all of the current gun control legislation, presumably in an attempt to forestall the deluge of legal challenges to other gun legislation in the wake of Heller. His explanation for why all of the existing gun statutes are OK - except this one - does not sit well with me.

Justice Scalia’s opinion stressed that the Court was not casting doubt on long-standing bans on carrying a concealed gun or on gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, on laws barring guns from schools or government buildings, and laws putting conditions on gun sales.

Why not, exactly? Taken from Scalia's oral arguments, he talks about common use:

Scalia suggested that under U.S. v. Miller, individuals have a Second Amendment right to keep and use a broad class of firearms in "common use" at this time -- though not arms that are "uncommon" for private citizens, such as machine guns.

This is a neat exercise in cause-effect reversal. The reason that machine guns are "uncommon" for private citizens is because of the federal statutes that govern their procurement. These statutes are not a reason to create yet another, concurring statute. If gun ownership is a fundamental right, than it has been violated since 1986, when the machine gun ban was enacted. Since we have allowed the ban to fester for 20+ years, machine gun ownership has become "uncommon". Scalia then uses "uncommon" as a reason to not protect the right. This would be tantamount to a review of metal gas cans. Metal gas cans have been banned for quite some time, due to the increased possibility of fires. If someone invented a new metal can that prevented fires and then challenged the metal can ban, would Scalia then say "well, nobody uses metal cans anyway, so the ban is OK"? Not quite circular logic, but certainly close.

The question of incorporation was also discussed in oral arguments. Scalia again:

[T]he Second Amendment [i]s a guarantee that the federal government will not interfere with the individual's right to bear arms for self-defense. ... Dispassionate scholarship suggests quite strongly that the right of the people to keep and bear arms meant just that. ... [T]here is no need to deceive ourselves as to what the original Second Amendment said and meant. Of course, properly understood, it is no limitation upon arms control by the states.

This would imply non-incorporation. However, in the written opinion:

The Court took no position on whether the Second Amendment right restricts only federal government powers, or also curbs the power of states to regulate guns. In a footnote, Scalia said that the issue of “incorporating” the Second into the Fourteenth Amendment, thus applying it to the states, was “a question not presented by this case.” But the footnote said decisions in 1886 and 1894 had reaffirmed that the Amendment “applies only to the Federal Government.” Whether the Court will reopen that issue thus will depend upon future cases.

Sounds pretty weasel-y to me...

The dissenting opinions are no better - but, since they do not control policy, they are significantly less relevant.

I believe all opinions expressed are weak and un-satisfactory. We know that these opinions are merely cleverly-worded justifications for the Justice's pre-conceived notions, and to support their particular political platforms. The fact that this outcome could easily be predicted shows that. The only real question was 5-4 or 6-3.

I continue to be amused by the invocation of "history" as a justification for politically-motivated judicial rulings. If history is as truly relevant as this decision makes it seem, we should be appointing not judges, but history professors, to the Supreme Court. This would (partially) ensure that a proper interpretation of history is used when we delve into the mystical judicial process of reading the Founding Father's minds.

The Perspective Problem

2008-06-24T13:15:00.006-04:00

Sometimes, enlightenment comes from mysterious places.

Most know that I tend to read publication that span the entire spectrum of ideology. I do this primarily to attempt to cut through some of the spin and propaganda by reading multiple sides. For instance, it has become blatantly obvious that National Review and The Weekly Standard are nothing more than Republican megaphones - Kristol and Goldberg have nothing to say that doesn't resemble "four legs good, two legs bad!". Therefore, finding decent commentary on the conservative side has led me to other sources, including The American Conservative. I would not have expected a Pat Buchanan enterprise to interest me much, but it has turned out to have some excellent analysis and commentary on a wide variety of issues.

I had an interesting time of reading Moscow Hangover. It is a long, rambling piece by Peter Hitchens, who apparently lived in Moscow in the 1990's. He talks about the evils of "totalitarian Socialism" - an ideological oxymoron if ever there was one. However, I have noted before that a term comes to mean something different than the initial definition, if it is implemented in a poor manner. "Communist" regimes in China and the USSR would certainly qualify under the term "totalitarian Socialism". So, I decided to continue reading the piece.

Hitchens thinks that the US, and western democracy in general, missed a golden opportunity during the fall of the USSR:

My own view, formed in Moscow during the final months of Gorbachev, is that the U.S. and its allies missed a great opportunity in Russia. We continued to be absurdly suspicious, and needlessly triumphalist, as Gorbachev dismantled his country. We forced Russia back to the humiliating borders imposed on her by Kaiser Wilhelm II at the Carthaginian Peace of Brest-Litovsk in 1917. We brought the NATO alliance up to Russia’s front door. We meddled in the Caucasus and Central Asia. But we had neither the military power nor the long-term commitment to these places to sustain these actions. Russia, sadly for the people of Georgia, Ukraine, and the Baltic Republics, will still be there waiting, long after Washington has lost interest in their fate.

And while we engaged in this maddening hubris, we thronged Moscow with experts on the free market and the outward forms of democracy but none on liberty or the rule of law. Many Russians to this day sneer at the very idea of democracy, associating it with the Yeltsin years of suppurating corruption combined with bankruptcy, when their savings were wiped out and their wages and pensions went unpaid, while oligarchs prospered. Instead of saying “demokratiya,” the normal Russian word for “democracy,” they say, with a twist of the mouth, “dermokratiya,” which translates politely as “the rule of excrement.” It is hard to blame them.

I found one point especially poignant, and telling:

...we thronged Moscow with experts on the free market and the outward forms of democracy but none on liberty or the rule of law.

Experts on the free market. Hmmm... No liberty, no rule of law, just economics. No wonder Russians think democracy is a joke.

As I continued to read the article, I slowly began to doubt my wisdom in reading it. Hitchens was scathing in his rebuke of the USSR, but many of his examples seemed a little too close to home.

But though the new rulers are the products of Marxism, they lack its driving purpose—or any real purpose except the gaining and keeping of wealth and power.

"Free market" economics, anyone?

The draft is breaking down as young men bribe their way out of service or sign up for dubious academic courses...

I think our current president did this too, didn't he?

I remembered the horrible little nurseries, baby farms where Moscow mothers would park their children while they went off to spend their days at compulsory jobs. Life was arranged so that families needed two Soviet salaries to pay for the necessities of life...

This is just like living in the US, according to this:

In 2002, only 7 percent of all U.S. households consisted of married couples with children in which only the husband worked. Dual-income families with children made up more than two times as many households. Even families with two incomes and no children outnumbered the traditional family by almost two to one...

Very few "traditional families" here.

I remembered the way that almost every adult I met was divorced.

According to this site, the US has the highest divorce rate of any country on analyzed, almost 35% higher than Russia's. This site also has the US essentially tied for the worst rate in the world. Conventional wisdom regarding religion and divorce rates is brought into serious doubt at this site:

Barna released the results of their poll about divorce on 1999-DEC-21. 1 They had interviewed 3,854 adults from the 48 contiguous states. The margin of error is ±2 percentage points. The survey found:

-11% of the adult population is currently divorced.
-25% of adults have had at least one divorce during their lifetime.
-Divorce rates among conservative Christians were significantly higher than for other faith groups, and much higher than Atheists and Agnostics experience.

George Barna, president and founder of Barna Research Group, commented:

"While it may be alarming to discover that born again Christians are more likely than others to experience a divorce, that pattern has been in place for quite some time. Even more disturbing, perhaps, is that when those individuals experience a divorce many of them feel their community of faith provides rejection rather than support and healing. But the research also raises questions regarding the effectiveness of how churches minister to families. The ultimate responsibility for a marriage belongs to the husband and wife, but the high incidence of divorce within the Christian community challenges the idea that churches provide truly practical and life-changing support for marriages."

Interesting...

I noted all of these things, and was thinking that Hitchens must really be daft for not recognizing it. I was therefore very interested when I reached this paragraph:

And I remembered coming back to the West, full of optimism, in 1992. And then I remembered seeing, year by year, in my own country and the U.S., new versions of all these subtle horrors: the “children’s rights” movement that encourages denunciation and sets children against their parents, the shoving of infants into daycare from an incredibly early age, the need for two salaries to pay the basic bills, the epidemic of divorce, the pandemic of abortion, the growing spiteful rage against faith. I saw all around me the construction of a system of thought that dismissed conservative, individualist points of view as intolerable and pathological. I saw public servants, academics, and broadcasters having their careers ruined—and in Britain being questioned by the police—for expressing incorrect opinions. Private life, in the modern West, is now becoming significantly less free than it is in post-ideological Moscow.

And then I realized that he was blaming all of this on the "Left".

It is an interesting lesson in real power to see how much mightier left-wing ideas and movements have become since they lost the support of all those Russian tanks.

It is amazing how different people can see the same set of facts, and draw entirely different conclusions from them. to review, the evils I cited are:

But though the new rulers are the products of Marxism, they lack its driving purpose—or any real purpose except the gaining and keeping of wealth and power.

The draft is breaking down as young men bribe their way out of service or sign up for dubious academic courses...

I remembered the horrible little nurseries, baby farms where Moscow mothers would park their children while they went off to spend their days at compulsory jobs. Life was arranged so that families needed two Soviet salaries to pay for the necessities of life...

I remembered the way that almost every adult I met was divorced.

My analysis is this:

-Gaining and keeping wealth and power is a product of western economics, which is a tenant of Conservative ideology. How is that "Left"?
-Are we to assume that this service dodging is only done and supported by Leftists? How many "conservative" elites have family serving in Iraq? I wonder why...
-Daycare and the need for dual-income families is again related to the economic system. I will again need someone to explain how this is "Left".
-Divorce rates are higher among Christians, and support for divorce in the Christian community is frowned upon. If there is "Leftist" influence here, I am missing it.

Hitchens obviously disagrees. He says this at the end:

I have begun to suspect that the bacillus of revolution, once confined inside the borders of the USSR, did not die with Communism. On the contrary, it adapted itself and escaped in a new form. Now it rages busily in a world where, instead of storming the Winter Palace, the post office, and the railroad station, the enemies of freedom infiltrate the TV studio, the college campus, and the school.

The fact that an attack on freedom "rages busily" is agreed upon by both Hitchens and myself. We disagree, not on whether there are enemies of freedom in our midst, but who those enemies are - and in what form they choose to present themselves.

Carlin

2008-06-23T21:17:00.003-04:00

Well, George died today. For all of the negative press he received over his use of colorful metaphoric language, he did have a pretty good understanding of how things work around here. For instance:

You have no rights:

Who is really in charge around here:

No more worries.

Why Boumediene Matters

2008-06-23T10:35:00.007-04:00

The recent Supreme Court decision Boumediene has provoked incessant chatter and debate among the legal types, even including a fear-mongering dissent from the "Originalist" (Republican) justice Scalia:

The game of bait-and-switch that today's opinion plays upon the Nation's Commander in Chief will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.

He also talks about released detainees "returning to the battlefield". Read here to see the extent of this exageration.

I will re-affirm my opinion that lawyers resemble the engineers that I work with in one very important respect: they are semantically brilliant, but functionally stupid. I say this because most of the analysis I have read seems about as morally observant as a mathematical derivation. I will therefore look at this event as a decent human being, instead of as a lawyer.

To me, the Constitutional debate is dubious, and not truly necessary. The question that is really being asked is this: If the US Government detains a foreign citizen, what can that foreign citizen do about it? If a US citizen is detained, they can petition for a writ of habeas corpus and have the case reviewed in court. Should this same ability be available to foreign citizens?

In trying to answer this question, one must understand how the system is supposed to work. At the outset, a law enforcement agency determines that they have sufficient evidence to arrest a particular individual. At this point, that individual is a suspect. So, let's all get this straight: the people held captive in Guantanamo Bay right now are terror suspects - not terrorists. In order for them to be officially labelled terrorists, there must be a review of the evidence, and a determination as to the guilt or innocence of the accused must be made. We have a name for this process - it is called a trial. In rare cases, Congress can skip this process, but only if they make available a "suitable replacement". Obviously, the Court did not consider Bush's tribunal system suitable. Some heartily approve. Senator McCain? not so much:

The United States Supreme Court yesterday rendered a decision which I think is one of the worst decisions in the history of this country...And we are going to be bollixed up in a way that is terribly unfortunate, because we need to go ahead and adjudicate these cases.

"we need to go ahead and adjudicate these cases"??? So, what the hell is taking so long? Lots of the detainees have been there for 6 years. Obama will undoubtedly be using this as a campaign point. His response is here:

This is an important step toward reestablishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law, and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus. Our courts have employed habeas corpus with rigor and fairness for more than two centuries, and we must continue to do so as we defend the freedom that violent extremists seek to destroy. We cannot afford to lose any more valuable time in the fight against terrorism to a dangerously flawed legal approach...Bringing these detainees to justice is too important for us to rely on a flawed system that has failed to convict anyone of a terrorist act since the 9-11 attacks, and compromised our core values.

All of this is very nice, but the real reason for the necessity of Bourmediene is only now starting to reveal itself. Revelations like this one are imperative:

The Bush administration wants to rewrite the official evidence against Guantanamo Bay detainees, allowing it to shore up its cases before they come under scrutiny by civilian judges for the first time.

The government has stood behind the evidence for years. Military review boards relied on it to justify holding hundreds of prisoners indefinitely without charge. Justice Department attorneys said it was thoroughly and fairly reviewed.

Now that federal judges are about to review the evidence, however, the government says it needs to make changes.

At Guantanamo Bay, the traditional rules of evidence do not apply in trials run by the military. In a Washington federal courtroom, they would...Attorneys for the detainees want judges to review all the evidence and decide whether each prisoner should be released. The government believes the judges should look only at limited evidence prepared by officials at Guantanamo Bay.

Remember, these are the "worst of the worst" - according to Cheney. McCain says they are "bad people". Based on what, exactly? Hopefully not the official evidence against them, since the Bush folks now think that it needs to be re-written in the face of judicial scrutiny. We have branded people "terrorists" based on shoddy evidence which will not stand up in court - unless we think this is all just a big coincidence.

This is not to suggest that there may not be some actual terrorists in Guantanamo - it is entirely likely, and hopefully a certainty, that some of the people we have been holding are in fact guilty. We know, however, that far more people have been detained than could ever possibly be tried and convicted. The fact that we have not moved to rectify these mistakes - whether intentional or not - by releasing those who we do not intend to prosecute, is a disgrace. We should get to a trial. Why not? Well, there may be reasons that the Bushites don't want this in a civilian court - stuff like this might come up. But, since we don't torture, it should be no problem, right?

Iraq's "Best Interest"

2008-06-19T10:05:00.005-04:00

Over the past few years, we have heard oft-repeated that our presence in Iraq is to "help" the Iraqis (even though it's false). Recently, several strange coincidences should cause any objective observer to (once again) seriously question this assertion.

The first major point comes from de-classified documents from the National Security Archive. One of the documents, an electronic message from Paul Bremer, outlines all of the "help" we should be giving Iraq:

A section on "military/security operations," though partially redacted, includes several points, e.g.:

"U.S. must be authorized to detain, intern, and interrogate anti-coalition and security risk personnel"
"U.S. must be authorized to retain custody of current POWs/detainees/internees…"
"U.S. must be authorized to seize and retain intelligence-related documents"
"Coalition forces must have unlimited authority to conduct military operations they deem necessary and proper under the circumstances."

On the "bearing of arms, uniforms, flags & markings," the cable says:

"U.S. forces must be authorized to bear arms and wear uniforms"
"Designated U.S. contractor personnel must be authorized to bear arms."

On "utilities and communications":

"U.S. forces must have access to utilities and enjoy priority in use" (Note 2)
"U.S. forces must be authorized to use all necessary radio spectrums without charge."

Information in the cable on "postal and recreational facilities" was redacted in its entirety.

As to "privileges and immunities," according to Bremer's cable,

"U.S. personnel must be accorded status equivalent to that accorded to administrative and technical (A&T) personnel (full criminal immunity and immunity from civil process for official acts)"
"Contractors and Iraqis employed by the coalition must be immune from legal process for acts performed in official capacity"
"U.S. personnel and contractor employees must not be surrendered to international tribunals or any other states or entities without approval of U.S. government."

On "entry and exit" into and from Iraq:

"U.S. personnel must be allowed to enter Iraq with ID cards and orders"
"Iraq must not use visa issuance as a way of imposing limits on contractor personnel."

Regarding "movement of vehicles, vessels, and aircraft":

"U.S. vehicles, vessels, and aircraft must be able to freely enter, exit, and transit Iraq"
"U.S. vehicles, vessels, and aircraft must not be subject to taxes, fees, tolls, charges, regulation, registration, inspection, etc."
"Iraq must accept U.S. driving licenses and permits as valid."

On "importation and exportation":

"U.S. must be able to import and export equipment, supplies, and materials without inspection, restrictions, taxes, customs, duties, etc."

In regard to "contracting", CPA headquarters wrote:

"U.S. must be free to contract for goods, services, and construction without restriction"
"U.S. must be able to contract using its own rules"

On taxation:

"U.S. forces must be exempt from all Iraqi taxes"
"Iraq may not tax income of U.S. personnel and certain contractors received from U.S. government or sources outside Iraq."

All discussion of "claims" was withheld from disclosure.

Wow, what a great deal for Iraq. Let me see if I can summarize all of the things the US must do to "help":

We can do anything militarily that we want
We can arrest, jail, and torture (oops, "interrogate") anyone we want
We can pack any weapons we want
We have priority use of all utilities (water, electricity, etc.)
We are immune from Iraqi laws
We don't pay anything for our use of Iraq's infrastructure
We can import/export without cost or inspection

How could it be that Iraq has the temerity to question this benevolence?

The reason I highlight the last point is due to this. Big oil is now engaged in "negotiations" with Iraq's government for no-bid contracts to service Iraq's oil fields:

Imagine. At the precise moment when demand for oil was the highest in history, a recently democratized country with enormous reserves had the chance to sell extraction contracts to the highest bidder. This was a country that desperately needed the revenue to help rebuild its schools, power grid and water supply after a long internal conflict. So why did it hand out the contracts with no auction at all?

Gee, I wonder... and without import/export cost too.

When we talk about Mission Accomplished, we are discussing the wrong mission. The mission is accomplished because we got what we wanted - It's the Oil:

Iraq has 115 billion barrels of known oil reserves. That is more than five times the total in the United States. And, because of its long isolation, it is the least explored of the world’s oil-rich nations. A mere two thousand wells have been drilled across the entire country; in Texas alone there are a million. It has been estimated, by the Council on Foreign Relations, that Iraq may have a further 220 billion barrels of undiscovered oil; another study puts the figure at 300 billion. If these estimates are anywhere close to the mark, US forces are now sitting on one quarter of the world’s oil resources. The value of Iraqi oil, largely light crude with low production costs, would be of the order of $30 trillion at today’s prices...

The draft law that the US has written for the Iraqi congress would cede nearly all the oil to Western companies. The Iraq National Oil Company would retain control of 17 of Iraq’s 80 existing oilfields, leaving the rest – including all yet to be discovered oil – under foreign corporate control for 30 years.

Thank God the Iraqis have us to "help" them.

The Basis of Debate

2008-06-09T22:14:00.007-04:00

In our Catholic Morality Lesson of the Day, NRO's editor has this to say:

Our religious morality necessarily informs our political judgments.

The thing about abortion is, it’s not just any other issue — as serious as so many others are. Abortion is not open to debate.

She goes on with some other gibberish about statements by the Pope, and implies that this Papal decree is the basis for her previous statement.

Now, we could very easily point out the obvious double-think occurring here by looking at her support for waterboarding, and bashing McCain for not supporting it:

I don’t see how such a man wins the Republican nomination. I’m second to none in praising him on his surge leadership. But on a whole host of issues — including water boarding, tax cuts, and the freedom of speech — he’s not one of us.

I'm sure she was much happier when McCain finally got on board (lol...). This obviously conflicts with Papal decree:

Public authorities must be ever vigilant in this task, eschewing any means of punishment or correction that either undermine or debase the human dignity of prisoners. In this regard, I reiterate that the prohibition against torture “cannot be contravened under any circumstances”.

Hmmm... not much grey area there. Oh, but wait - we don't torture, right Humpty?

...There's glory for you!"

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' "Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"

"But `glory' doesn't mean `a nice knock-down argument,'" Alice objected.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master— that’s all.”

As easy as this de-composition of KJL's poor logic is, I'm not going to continue it. I will instead explain the real reason that abortion and torture are different animals: it is a matter of basis. What does this mean? I will explain.

When one is evaluating the rightness or wrongness of a particular action, the judgement is always filtered by the situation at hand. Certian facts surrounding a given scenario will change the application of the judgement. These facts are the "basis". It is almost impossible to find any judgement that will stand up under the scrutiny of specially-constructed circumstances (the "One Percent Doctrine"). For example, none but the most dogmatic abortion haters would say that a 14 year old girl who is a victim of incest - and as a result has contracted HIV - should not at least consider all her options, including abortion. Similarly, torture supporters continue to point towards the "ticking time bomb" scenario, where torture of one could save thousands from a disaster. These 2 scenarios are completely different, because of basis.

In the abortion decision, there are several factors that exist:

1. The girl is a minor (14)
2. She is a victim of incest
3. She has contracted HIV

The most important part of this analysis is that these things are known fact. They can be scientifically and unequivocally verified. We have birth certificates, blood tests, DNA verification, and all manner of other scientific tools available to determine the veracity of each factor. We do not have to "think", "assume", or do any type of "intelligence work" - all of which are debatable and subject to error (both of fact, and of interpretation). In the "ticking time bomb" scenario, all of the "evidence" is circumstantial. We cannot know for sure that there even is a ticking bomb. We also do not know that the proposed torturee knows anything that can guarantee that we stop the bomb before it goes off.

In the torture debate, the basis for the pro-torture argument is assumption.

In the abortion debate, the basis for the pro-choice argument is fact.

Obviously, the factual basis in the abortion case does not force one to support abortion. One may look at the facts of the case, and still honestly believe that abortion is wrong. That is OK. The point, however, is that the assumptive basis for the pro-torture decision makes that decision erroneous. The torture debate already hinges on the bleeding edge of morality - as does the abortion debate. In order to push the decision over that edge, one must be operating from a factual basis... not an assumptive one. Torture supporters cannot ever operate from that factual basis, because the actual facts are unknowable in advance - no amount of "intelligence" can create a factual basis, merely a better assumption.

On the torture question, we have been debating on the wrong definitions, as well as on the wrong basis. No basis can be brought forth that is grounded in fact. As such, there is no justification for stepping over the moral line and becoming torturers. Remember that.

Primary Reflections

2008-06-05T09:18:00.007-04:00

With the impending arrival of Clinton's supposed bow-out of the Democratic primary, I will finally comment on how I see the primary - specifically, on how the two candidates for the general election could have possibly made it this far.

The first momentous detail that must be noted is that in both cases, the party's preferred candidate did not get the nomination. Everyone naturally assumed that we would be talking about Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton in the generals. Surprise! but, how did it happen?

The Democratic case is much more interesting to analyze, but I will first say a few words about the Republicans. There were essentially 5 contenders: McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Giuliani, and Ron Paul. With Romney being the RNC favorite, and Giuliani having his 9/11 "street cred", they seemed to have a huge advantage. But then, a funny thing happened: Ron Paul became significant. He became significant because of a huge, grass-roots, Internet-based funding and publicity campaign. To my knowledge, this is the first time in history that this has occurred. Even Ross Perot and Ralph Nader were unable to mobilize voters in a primary campaign. It is very significant that a candidate who was essentially blacklisted from public debate could become relevant on the national political scene. This should serve as a message to the political parties: grass roots campaigns are here to stay. You must take them into account.

Also, the Republicans had another very puzzling occurrence: McCain's campaign went broke, then he came back to win. I can recall vividly his campaign falling apart, soon after I attended one of his speeches and wrote this. This is one of the few times that primary election success has smacked in the face of the "wealth primary". McCain was able to secure the nomination - fairly easily - without having the most money. It probably helped that most of his opponents stunk.

The last notable detail is the Republican primary is how their traditional "strategy" destroyed some of their stronger candidates. We all know that the Republican party has married the Religious Right. This marriage hurt Romney (the Mormon) very badly. Romney spent more time explaining his religion than he did campaigning. By contrast, Huckabee became nothing more that a bible-thumping lunatic, instead of the multi-dimensional person that he seems to be. Another message to the Republicans - be careful who you appease.

To recap the Republican scenario: The RNC made 3 major mistakes-

1. They discounted the importance of grass-roots politics and the Internet.
2. They assumed that the rules of the wealth primary would hold true.
3. They were held captive by the special interests that they had catered to for years.

Switching to the Democrats, this was a four horse race: Clinton, Gore, Edwards, and Obama. At the beginning of 2007, Clinton had a huge lead in the polls, and in the fundraising efforts. She pursued her campaign as if she was the inevitable candidate. Gore was never really in the race, and Edwards dropped out soon after Iowa. So, after February 2008, we essentially have a two horse race.

In the Democratic race, the wealth primary and the special interest trap were essentially non-existent - Obama actually raised more money than Clinton, using the same basic mechanism as Ron Paul. There were instead two other major factors that yielded the Democratic result.

The first was a factor that is often dismissed as irrelevant, but I believe is actually the most relevant - campaign tone. Historically, campaign politics is about mud-slinging and tearing down your opponent. Clinton certainly engaged in this whole-heartedly. Obama, however, took a different tactic. He was constantly upbeat and positive. He emphasized hope and looking forward. This theme, repeated over and over, helped to generate the excitement over Obama's candidacy. It also helps that he is a very good speaker, but the strategy of positivism is very important. I don't know if Obama will follow up on any of the things he said, but he has created an aura of excitement and positive vibes around his campaign. This is not easily quelled by an opponent's negativity and fear-mongering.

Obama did not suddenly invent this tactic for the 2008 election. Few people remember the 2004 Democratic national Convention, but those who do surely remember that Obama was a speaker there, and gave this speech. In reading it, the same principals that guide his current campaign show up. This 2004 speech met with thunderous approval, even overshadowing former president Clinton (fore-shadowing?).

So, who cares about likeability?

The chart above reveals some very interesting data (more date here). When the primary was a 4-way affair, Clinton had about 35% of the vote. Obama had only about half that, at 18%, with Gore and Edwards about 12% each. However, as Gore and Edwards began to drop out, Hillary Clinton gained almost no additional support. Obama, by contrast, exploded up the polls - ultimately overtaking Clinton.

The other important point regarding the Democrats is that, while Obama was out-speaking Clinton and building his positive aura, his staff was also whipping hers strategically. The Democratic primary process is very complicated, as I have noted in the past. Obama's team dug though every nuance of the process, and determined how to use it to their candidate's best advantage.

Obama used the Democrats' system of awarding delegates to limit his losses in states won by Clinton while maximizing gains in states he carried. Clinton, meanwhile, conserved her resources by essentially conceding states that favored Obama, including many states that held caucuses instead of primaries.

Clinton's staff was made up mostly of loyalists, instead of experts. This hurt her badly, as well as exposing her feeling of inevitability. By the time she realized the problem, it was too late.

There are many strange pieces to the Democratic nomination process. They are not secret, but they are unusual. There is a reason for this:

The fiasco of the 1968 convention in Chicago, where police battled anti-war protesters in the streets, led to calls for a more inclusive process.

Given this, changes were made:

One big change was awarding delegates proportionally, meaning you can finish second or third in a primary and still win delegates to the party's national convention. As long candidates get at least 15 percent of the vote, they are eligible for delegates.

The system enables strong second-place candidates to stay competitive and extend the race—as long as they don't run out of campaign money.

As part of the proportional system, Democrats award delegates based on statewide vote totals as well as results in individual congressional districts. The delegates, however, are not distributed evenly within a state, like they are in the Republican system.

Obama's campaign made careful note of these rules, determining how they could benefit Obama:

In a stark example, Obama's victory in Kansas wiped out the gains made by Clinton for winning New Jersey, even though New Jersey had three times as many delegates at stake. Obama did it by winning big in Kansas while keeping the vote relatively close in New Jersey.

We can see that a combination of good campaign strategy and a well-presented candidate with cross-demographic appeal is what ultimately defeated Clinton:

"The Obama campaign was very good at targeting districts in areas where they could do well," said former DNC Chairman Don Fowler, a Clinton superdelegate from South Carolina. "They were very conscious and aware of these nuances."

But, Fowler noted, the best strategy in the world would have been useless without the right candidate.

"If that same strategy and that same effort had been used with a different candidate, a less charismatic candidate, a less attractive candidate, it wouldn't have worked," Fowler said. "The reason they look so good is because Obama was so good."

It's also a good reson to supprot Obama over Clinton. Do you want someone in the White House who doesn't even take the time to understand the details of their tasks?

Now for the lessons that the DNC should learn:

1. They discounted the importance of the Internet - particularly the fund-raising aspect.
2. They continued to engage in an antiquated strategy of mud-slinging.
3. they did not understand their own process well enough to craft a winning strategy.

The reason I like these primary reults has nothing to do with the candidates. I don't expect either McCain or Obama to be much different than historical presidents in substance. However, their primary victories will help to change how election politics function. Perhaps the political world will learn to:

1. Pay more attention to grass-roots opinions.
2. Be less focused on campaign funding, or at least manage it differently. (Some already have)
3. Reduce the frequency of mud-slinging attacks.
4. Separate themselves from special interests.
5. Be more detail-oriented.

These changes would be welcome improvements indeed.

Managing the Social Surplus

2008-06-03T09:28:00.009-04:00

I think it is a great idea for everyone to watch this. It's a speech given by Clay Shirkyon at a web conference (full transcript can be read here.) In the speech, Clay talks about what he calls the social surplus. Here is how he describes it:

...rising GDP per capita, rising educational attainment, rising life expectancy and, critically, a rising number of people who were working five-day work weeks. For the first time, society forced onto an enormous number of its citizens the requirement to manage something they had never had to manage before--free time.

The next several paragraphs talk about what we decided to do with this free time. In the 19th century, we basically used that free time to get drunk. Clay references "gin pushcarts working their way through the streets of London". We did this for many years, since other forms of entertainment were few and expensive.

In the 20th century, he argues that the new time-waster has become TV sitcoms. Last year, American people spent 200 billion hours engrossed in a non-interactive, sedentary activity. Many people referenced the decay of our society in terms of this massive amount of TV watching, but the fact of the matter is that TV had (partially) replaced getting drunk, but without a new paradigm it was difficult to step out of TV's intoxicating appeal.

..the interesting thing about a surplus like that is that society doesn't know what to do with it at first--hence the gin, hence the sitcoms. Because if people knew what to do with a surplus with reference to the existing social institutions, then it wouldn't be a surplus, would it? It's precisely when no one has any idea how to deploy something that people have to start experimenting with it, in order for the surplus to get integrated, and the course of that integration can transform society.

And it's only now, as we're waking up from that collective bender, that we're starting to see the cognitive surplus as an asset rather than as a crisis. We're seeing things being designed to take advantage of that surplus, to deploy it in ways more engaging than just having a TV in everybody's basement.

...or at least some people are. The following anecdote is quite amusing, but also almost universally true:

I was being interviewed by a TV producer to see whether I should be on their show, and she asked me, "What are you seeing out there that's interesting?" I started telling her about the Wikipedia article on Pluto. You may remember that Pluto got kicked out of the planet club a couple of years ago, so all of a sudden there was all of this activity on Wikipedia. The talk pages light up, people are editing the article like mad, and the whole community is in an ruckus--"How should we characterize this change in Pluto's status?"...So I tell her all this stuff, and I think, "Okay, we're going to have a conversation about authority or social construction or whatever." That wasn't her question. She heard this story and she shook her head and said, "Where do people find the time?" That was her question. And I just kind of snapped. And I said, "No one who works in TV gets to ask that question. You know where the time comes from. It comes from the cognitive surplus you've been masking for 50 years."

This is a TV person - stealers of 200 billion hours of American free time per year - asking "where do people find the time"? Perhaps they find in those 200 billion hours??

This seems kind of strange at first, until one realizes that in a social context, sitting around mindlessly watching TV is considered normal. Spending time in an electronic interactive environment is not:

In this same conversation with the TV producer I was talking about World of Warcraft guilds, and as I was talking, I could sort of see what she was thinking: "Losers. Grown men sitting in their basement pretending to be elves."

At least they're doing something.

However lousy it is to sit in your basement and pretend to be an elf, I can tell you from personal experience it's worse to sit in your basement and try to figure if Ginger or Mary Ann is cuter.

I agree.

I recently wrote a post on a similar subject. I didn't realize it at the time, but what I was really trying to get at was the essence of this speech: Interactive online electronics are the 21st century's version of managing the social surplus, much as alcohol in the 19th century and TV in the 20th. The key difference is that, although it may not seem that way at first, the level of interaction with others in the social surplus is growing.

In the 19th century, people sought to escape reality in a bottle, a place that allows for essentially zero social interaction. Any interaction that does occur is negative as often as not. In the 20th century, the destructive nature of drinking was slowly replaced by the non-destructive - yet still non-interactive - vice of TV. It is only recently, with the growth of available technology, that the interactive aspect of human relationships can be integrated. Hence, online communities, chat rooms, and video games.

This article in Prospect has a similar view. It reviews the shift in terms of "expert" opinion from the people who say that video games corrupt children, and that they don't promote intellectual growth the way great theatre and literature do. Before reviewing this question, Prospect first notes the incredible growth in the online interactive arena:

The video games industry, meanwhile, continues to grow at a dizzying pace. Print has been around for a good 500 years; cinema and recorded music for around 100; radio broadcasts for 75; television for 50. Video games have barely three serious decades on the clock, yet already they are in the overtaking lane. In Britain, according to the Entertainment & Leisure Software Publishers Association, 2007 was a record-breaking year, with sales of "interactive entertainment software" totalling £1.7bn—26 per cent more than in 2006. In contrast, British box office takings for the entire film industry were just £904m in 2007—an increase of 8 per cent on 2006—while DVD and video sales stood at £2.2bn (just 0.5 per cent up on 2006), and physical music sales fell from £1.8bn to £1.4bn. At this rate, games software, currntly our second most valuable retail entertainment market, will become Britain's most valuable by 2011. Even books—the British consumer book market was worth £2.4bn in 2006—may not stay ahead for ever.

This is obviously not confined to the multi-player gaming scene, but even 1 player video games involve infinitely more interaction than the average TV program. Regardless of the number of buttons pressed, the ball will still roll between Bill Buckner's legs every time (included for the baseball fans). In a video game, however, the user can learn how to prevent this from happening, and can use this knowledge to actualize the desired result.

Back to the central criticism, though. Claiming that video game growth somehow limits intellectual growth through more traditional means is severely antiquated. I can count on one hand the number of people in my office that know how Othello is, and they have not suffered the scourge of video game play. But what about other hobbies - woodworking, model making, kit cars, etc? Surely video game take away from these? Of course they do. But these are all simply time-filling activities as well, with no more inherent value than video games. Determining the proper way to repair a motorcycle engine is not intrinsically more intellectually valuable than learning the complex strategies required to defeat a well-written video game.

Yet beneath the hysterical rhetoric of many objectors, there are eminently reasonable concerns. Spending time playing video games means not spending time on more traditional leisure activities, such as sport, reading or conventional socialising. And, seen from the outside, the benefits of playing thousands of hours of video games can be hard to pinpoint.

This is a true statement. The key thing to understand, however, is that the social surplus is about something other than "intellectual growth", or a "profound shift in a child's worldview". it is simply about one thing.

Enjoyment.

We spend so many hours working, going to class, and generally being impressed upon to "make something of ourselves", that we loose the child-like wonder of doing an activity purely because we like it. In a world where children recieve ever more schoolwork as well as more structured activity to help shape their lives, it occurs to me that sometimes they just need to be kids and enjoy themselves. This will not be done in the same way as in the previous generation. In the same way that older people look back in fondness on their youth, so will the current generation of youth. It is not the particular activity that is important, but rather the emotion that is derived from it. I have discussed several times with gaming friends of mine the pure euphoria that is derived from completing a seemingly impossible electronic task. As a huge athelete, I can tell you that this euphoria is tantamount to the "thrill of victory" on the athletic field. The activity is different, but the result is the same.

The older generation will always find fault with the priorities and methods of the current generation - "Back in my day...we did it idfferently". Well, guess what? It's not your day anymore, either in the social or personal context. Things are differnt. Things will continue to be different. Get used to it.

Freedom of Information and Full Disclosure

2008-05-30T22:32:00.005-04:00

As many of my readers know, I have a special affinity for government documents and the torture debate. Today, I get to talk about both of these items in one post.

Lucky me.

As you may (or may not) know, the ACLU has been suing the government under the Freedom of Information Act to obtain and publicize the decision-making and policy regarding the use of torture. As a result, the feds have grudgingly agreed to release certain secret documents into the public domain. The ACLU has a directory of the ones they have received relating to torture here.

Before spending too much time reviewing these documents, we must remember that the point of the FOIA is to provide transparency in government operations to the public. They work for us, after all (at least, that's what our founding documents say). With that in mind, take a look at one of the most amusing "de-classified" documents in history:

Yup, it's not even fake. Exactly 6 words are readable - These enhanced techniques include: Water board.

One does not need to be particularly insightful to see what is going on: the feds are hiding information. The only reason the water board part is not redacted as well is that the CIA has already publicly admitted doing it. This type of "response" is truly unacceptable.

Lest we think that the above document is an outlier, see this document. It is supposed to be a memo from a CIA employee to a CIA attorney. The document is 4 pages long, and includes exactly 7 uncensored words. 3 of the pages are blatantly withheld, "Denied in Full". Or perhaps, this 10-page document that is so completely edited that we can only see that Zubaydah was captured in a raid, waterboarded, some folks were briefed and tapes were reviewed. Incidentally, I make a major assumption in using the past tense here, due to the fact that the document's date is removed, and the context of the reading does not suggest that this was written after the event. This could just as easily be a planning document, used to determine what would be done when the raid and capture of Zubaydah was enacted. Who knows?

Biblical Literalism and IQ

2008-05-27T21:35:00.005-04:00

I find that there is alot of subtly buried in this post at Science Blogs. It makes the statistical case that the more literalistic one is in interpreting the Bible, the lower that person's IQ tends to be. Here is one of the charts:

For the non-statistical, an R-squared of 86% is pretty damning, although not air tight. The author makes several points:

The data on literal interpretation of the Bible is from a book which you can read via Google. The IQ scores are from the General Social Survey as reported by The Inductivist. I already knew that this sort of correlation existed, it's pretty unsurprising as I noted. The same pattern shows up if you use post-graduate eduation as the dependent variable. And I spot checked SAT scores by denomination, and again the association shows up.

So, literal interpretations of old documents is a relatively good indicator of lower IQ. To get an understanding of how this translates into real life, read one of the few dissents to the article posted in the comments section:

With all due respect, I find your conclusion to be incorrect. I have a 145 IQ and do take the Bible literally. Of course, I do compare the newer translations to older works for complete understanding and cultural relevancy. How were the surveys given? Were they biased? Why worry so much about what others think? I am a Baptist as are many of my friends. Most of them are intellectuals with multiple degrees. Would we invalidate your conclusion? This seems to be a perceived line of thought that says that a smart person cannot be a Christian.

A "smart person cannot be a Christian"???

If this person truly has a 145 IQ, then they must be both grammatically and statistically stupid and make up for it somewhere else. First, EVERY group on the graph is Christian. This study says nothing about Christians, only about literalists. Second, a single - or even a small number - of data points do not invalidate a study based on averages. Anyone with any knowledge of statistics knows this. Apparently our respondent with the 145 IQ does not.

This answer further serves to support the hypothesis I made here regarding the lack of correlation between IQ and actual intelligence:

Knowing how to solve logic puzzles and identifying Latin roots in words I have never seen says more about my test-taking skills and my training than about my fundamental brain functionality. The traditional measures of intelligence - scholastic performance, recall memory, etc. - are embarrassingly superficial and incomplete.

I still feel this way, and IQ may not be the best metric. The fact that the analysis also uses other measurables helps lend some credence, but the possibility of intervening variables still exists. A simple explanation, such as the fact that lower intelligence individuals may tend to gravitate toward faiths that have "all the answers", may be the most appropriate reasoning.

It is easy to understand why smarter people cannot be literalists. The simple fact is that the Bible is filled with direct contradictions, some of which I cited here. Consider again the following from Numbers 31:

17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

As you can see, the Bible advocates:

Genocide (Slew all the males and the females who have "known man" - i.e. had sex)
Rape (all the women children - the virgins - keep alive for yourselves)

Or, perhaps 1 Samuel 15:

3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
33 And Samuel said, As thy sword hath made women childless, so shall thy mother be childless among women. And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal.

Here, God specifically tells Samuel to commit genocide.

How does a free-thinking literalist justify this? obviously, they are not literalists, because I know of nobody that advocates genocide and rape. This is instead a creepy two-faced kind of literalism, where specific passages are interpreted literally - or not - as the person arbitrarily decides.

But, back to the original point that literalists seem to be less intelligent the more literal they get. There is an obvious parallel when talking about old documents that were written in another time, with another set of philosophical and societal norms. I am referring to the Constitutional debate between originalism and progressive interpretation. Originalism is like literalism. The same two-faced interpretation that we saw in Biblical theology is evident in Constitutional analysis as well. We know that it is a Republican trend to define ones self as "originalist", but to shed that skin when it is politically inconvenient. I have discussed this before, but I will mention it again.

The current Supreme Court is evaluating the DC gun case as it relates to the Second Amendment. As a refresher, the Second Amendment says:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Most people interpret this to mean that the people have the right to bear arms because a well regulated militia is necessary. Indeed, an originalist reading of the Second Amendment would seem to necessitate this view. However, this is not the case - originalists are using the comma placement as a reason to separate the militia from the right. They are originalists, unless they happen to disagree with the particular passage. Then, it is much more politically expedient to find a progressive interpretation. At this point, one can hide behind being an abstract thinker:

The most common approach -- sometimes accompanied by some cherry-picking of quotes from the 14th Amendment's framers in Congress, with little attention paid to its ratifiers in state governments -- is to argue that we should read the amendment not as embodying any specific principle [about segregation], but rather as proscribing [racial discrimination] at a more abstract level.... The problem, however, is that if constitutional principles are understood at such a high level of abstraction, then virtually any outcome in any case contestable enough to get to the Supreme Court can be called "originalist."

We are originalist, even if we have to use progressive principles to get there.

If the literalist-IQ correlation holds for old documents like the Bible, how do we think it would apply to originalist Constitutional thinking, especially given that the two ideologies fault out in nearly identical ways when confronted with conflicting information?

The Overview of My Views

2008-05-17T22:10:00.011-04:00

As I pen (or type) this, this site is approaching 450 posts. This creates a difficult challenge for the new reader - how to determine my particular background and bias. For this reason, I have decided to create and mark a small sub-set of posts, which I believe help to explain my outlook and position on various subjects. I attempted this in my first ever post, Ideological Initiatives, and my answer to What is a Haymarket Prism?, but I feel that a broader canvas would be helpful.

First, I think that one develops their outlook based on what they have seen occur in the past. Therefore, I created 3 posts last year that looked back on 3 historical events that I believe had a great impact on my national and world view. They are available here.

When reading my posts, readers will note that I am hyper-critical of governmental power, and very supportive of the powerless. I explain why For the Record.

I also have my own particular view on various contemporary topics. These include religion, human rights and their current status, the law and judges (in a general sense), the torture debate and the Iraq war, the role of the media in the US, the economy (with emphasis on corporations and outsourcing), politics (especially in election season), and education.

Looking Bacq - at Iraq

2008-05-16T14:31:00.002-04:00

I think it would behoove most people to read this post from the Slate. It is a series of articles written by pro-war turned anti-war writers, who are all asked how they could have mis-judged the Iraq situation so badly. I have my own opinion on this, and so I read the individual posts with great interest. I am sorry to report, however, that the explanations are sorely lacking. They are lacking, not so much in substantive thought, as they are in introspective analysis. Most of the authors are still trying to admit their mistake without admitting that they were wrong.

A good example of this is the post by Jeffery Goldberg. The following post seems to be the de-facto response from most:

...another larger mistake was to put my trust in the Bush administration, not so much on matters of intelligence—faulty intelligence was a near-universal phenomenon—but on matters of basic competence.

Ah, I see...in Hillary Clinton-esque fashion, if the war had just been run well, it would all be OK. I consider this to be a monumentally pathetic cop-out, and an ends-justify-the-means explanation. There has never, to my knowledge, ever been a war fought with what I'm sure Goldberg would consider "basic competence". This is due to both the scale of the undertaking, as well as the nature of the enemy. How Goldberg could not have known this is nearly mind-boggling. Here is the closest we will come to Goldberg's actual feelings:

A long time ago, I was certain that the Iraq invasion would be seen as a moral victory. Most Americans quite obviously do not see it this way. But on my last trip to Iraq, four months ago, I learned that many of Saddam's victims continue to see the invasion as a triumph of justice. The Kurds, who make up nearly 20 percent of Iraq, remain, by and large, quite pleased with the Anglo-American invasion, which removed from their collective neck a regime that did an excellent job over the years of murdering them. This must count for something, and I'm hopeful that one day, when President Bush is gone and the Kurds are free, it will.

So then Jeffery, why wait until 2003 to cheerlead this cause?

Andrew Sullivan does a much better job of analyzing the philosophy of the decision - even if he misses what I believe to be the true reason. He divides his response into 4 sections.

1 - Historical Narcissism

Sullivan describes this as the following:

I became much too concerned with fighting that old internal ideological battle and failed to think freshly or realistically about what the consequences of intervention could be. I allowed myself to be distracted by an ideological battle when what was required was clear-eyed prudence.

This is true to some extent. When armed conflict erupts, the pacifist element of the US will speak out against it. This requires almost reflexive retaliation from the Republicans, who will argue something similar to Sullivan:

I saw the opposition to the war as another example of a faulty Vietnam Syndrome, associated it entirely with the far left—or boomer nostalgia—and was revolted by the anti-war marches I saw in Washington.

This could explain some of the reaction.

2 -Narrow Moralism

I became enamored of my own morality and the righteousness of this single moral act. And he was a monster, as we discovered. But what I failed to grasp is that war is also a monster, and unless one weighs all the possibly evil consequences of an abstractly moral act, one hasn't really engaged in a truly serious moral argument. I saw war's unknowable consequences far too glibly.

The fact of the matter is that no living American can honestly say they have witnessed a foreign fighting force on American soil. "War" is something we see filtered through the lenses of CNN. It becomes an idealized, movie-like event, where the good guys do the right thing, and all is right with the world. We see evil (and make no mistake, Saddam was evil), and we think that if we apply our movie war scenario to it, we can make everything better. The pacifist who says "war is never the answer" is much nearer the mark than Sullivan was in his pro-war stance.

3 - Unconservatism

...i.e. Sullivan didn't do his homework. He says things like this:

I bought the argument put forward by many neoconservatives that Iraq was one of the more secular and modern of Arab societies; that these (Sunni-Shiite) divisions were not so deep; that all those pictures of men in suits and mustaches and women in Western clothing were the deeper truth about this rare, modern Arab society...I pathetically failed to appreciate how those divides never truly go away and certainly cannot be abolished by a Western magic wand.

Huh? Sullivan thought that Iraq was like...America? I find this borderline unbelievable. Anyone with even cursory knowledge of the Middle East knows that religious and social unrest has been its hallmark for hundreds of years. The relatively recent complication of Israel smack in the middle of it should not obfuscate the previous issues.

For Sullivan, apparently, it does.

4 -Misreading Bush

In a similar excuse to Goldberg's, Sullivan cites not Bush's competence, but his moral judgement. Sullivan says this:

I had no idea he was so complacent—even glib—about the evil that good intentions can enable.

This is his condemnation of Bush?? Especially after saying about himself:

I saw war's unknowable consequences far too glibly.

It seems that Sullivan didn't mis-read Bush at all, but instead shared the same opinion.

I truly did not believe that Bush would use 9/11 to tear up the Geneva Conventions. When I first heard of abuses at Gitmo, I dismissed them as enemy propaganda. I certainly never believed that a conservative would embrace torture as the central thrust of an anti-terror strategy and lie about it, and scapegoat underlings for it, and give us the indelible stain of Bagram and Camp Cropper and Abu Ghraib and all the other secret torture and interrogation sites that Bush and Cheney created and oversaw. I certainly never believed that a war I supported for the sake of freedom would actually use as its central weapon the deepest antithesis of freedom—the destruction of human autonomy and dignity and will that is torture.

I would certainly hope not.

Most of the other essays contain something similar to these sentiments - hence, my disappointment. I had hoped that at least one of the group would point to the real reason. Richard Cohen gets the closest here:

No, I'm not going to sit here passively and wait for it to happen. I wanted to go to "them," whoever "they" were, grab them by the neck, and get them before they could get us. One of "them" was Saddam Hussein.

Cohen cites anger and outrage as his motivators, but it is actually another, closely related emotion that is the true culprit.

Fear.

For as long as any current American has been alive, war has been a philosophical discussion, to occur in places that are far, far away from our homes and families. Suddenly, on 9/11, war ceased to be about philosophy - Americans were dying in their homes and offices. Not poor, lower-class soldier Americans who were sent off to fight in one of our favored armed conflicts, but upper and middle class civilians who were right here, "safe" at home. Incessant repetition of the images of businessmen plummeting 60 stories to their deaths invoked the chilling realization that these businessmen were just like us. That could have been us, or our children.

And we were afraid.

In our fear, we needed to strike back. To make ourselves safe again. There was only one problem - we didn't know who to strike. The enemy infuriated us by having the audacity to avoid our soldiers and our missiles. We just couldn't find them. The Bushites were smart enough to know that there needed to be a bad guy, and that bad guy had to pay. To their great satisfaction, there just happened to be someone available. Someone who we had fought before, and someone who had committed despicable acts (sometimes with our help, but let's forget that part). He also couldn't run away very easily, being that he was attached to a particular country's government. We had the perfect culprit.

Much time and energy was devoted to developing circumstantial "evidence" that connected the two events. And people bought it, with the help of the cited journalists and others. People bought it because they were afraid. People were told that 9/11 could and would happen again. It might even be worse, if Saddam unleashed his mythical "WMD's". We were told that Saddam supported terrorists, and those terrorists were "a threat to your children".

And we were afraid.

Logical analysis belies any explanation offered at the time of the decision, as the last 5 years have shown us. The WMD scare was simply a farce, and we knew it. We had people in Iraq with extensive knowledge of the situation. Hans Blix (remember him?) was the weapons inspector in Iraq who told us that Iraq had no weapons:

Speaking on the anniversary of the United States' invasion of Iraq, originally declared as a pre-emptive strike against a madman ready to deploy weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), the man first charged with finding those weapons said that the U.S. government has "the same mind frame as the witch hunters of the past" — looking for evidence to support a foregone conclusion.
"There were about 700 inspections, and in no case did we find weapons of mass destruction"

Well, that just wouldn't do. We needed our bad guy in response to 9/11. Blix agrees:

Blix speculated that the Bush administration's real motivation for invading Iraq was in reaction to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. "The U.S. was attacked on its own soil. I was here; it was like an earthquake in this country," he said. "It was as if Afghanistan was not enough."

And he was right - it wasn't enough. We needed to be right again - to be strong again. Our aura of invincibility had been stripped away - not by an army, but by 19 determined individuals. We felt vulnerable. We felt naked.

And we were afraid.

Mis-fires and Felonies

2008-05-15T13:46:00.008-04:00

If you haven't seen these two CNN reports on the federal conviction of David Olofson for illegally transporting a machine gun, take a look. It seems to be a case of the federal government's inconsistency in enforcing legal statutes. As a member of ar15.com, I have seen this archive of the documents that explain the case. There are many pages, but I will try to stick to the basics.

In general terms, Olofson was arrested for "transporting a machine gun". It seems that he loaned a semi-automatic (legal) rifle to a friend, who took it to the shooting range. At some point in the course of the day, the friend pulled the trigger and more than 1 bullet was fired. The gun then promptly jammed, (seemingly) revealing a mechanical failure. However, when the ATF was notified of the incident, they determined that the rifle was, in fact, a machine gun. Olofson was arrested, and just received 30 months in prison for his offense.

First of all, finding a transcript of the trial is hard. I finally found it: page 1, page 2, page 3. Note that the guy had to pay over $1000 to get a copy. There is a lot of info, but the bottom line appears to be this - the applicable statue says that if a gun fires more than 1 round with 1 pull of the trigger, it's a machine gun. Period. It doesn't matter if it's a malfunction, a broken part, or if little green men come down from Mars to throw bullets down the barrel. It's a machine gun, no exceptions. Here is the defendant describing the ruling in his own words at ar15.com:

It is not necessary to allege or prove the weapon was modified in any way. No one has alleged or proven that it was, nor has the jury found that it was modified. All that the government needs to prove is that the gun meets the strict statutory interpretation. That it may be a factory gun in a configuration approved by the ATF makes no difference as far as the statue is concerned... Not void for vagueness because the statue it clear, any gun that goes bang more than once, no other requirements for standardized testing of any sort, or modification to the gun needed.

One need not know that I am a gun owner to know that I consider this garbage. The dude is getting a raw deal. However, I find bitterly ironic that this rigid interpretation of the statute (call it "originalism" if you like) is just the type of legal reading that Republicans prefer. I will bet that the defendant voted Republican in 2000 and 2004 - he probably supports originalist Constitutional interpretation too. Poor bastard.

Read this post about Justice Scalia and how his strict originalist reading of the Constitution yields similar non-sensical results:

If someone's in custody, as in Abu Ghraib, and they are brutalized by a law enforcement person, if you listen to the expression 'cruel and unusual punishment,' doesn't that apply?" Stahl asks.
"No, No," Scalia replies.
"Cruel and unusual punishment?" Stahl asks.
"To the contrary," Scalia says. "Has anybody ever referred to torture as punishment? I don't think so."
... And when he's hurting you in order to get information from you…you don’t say he's punishing you. What’s he punishing you for? He's trying to extract…," Scalia says.

This is the type of judicial meddling that torture apologists have used to justify their actions on torture. One of the major reasons so many legal types are upset by this it that it opens the door for even more abuses through a manipulation of legal wording - such as in the gun case, where some people are referencing Staples v United States - particularly the clarification of § 5845 (b) provided in the notes of the majority opinion, written by Justice Thomas:

1 As used here, the terms "automatic" and "fully automatic" refer to a weapon that fires repeatedly with a single pull of the trigger. That is, once its trigger is depressed, the weapon will automatically continue to fire until its trigger is released or the ammunition is exhausted. Such weapons are "machineguns" within the meaning of the Act.

This might be a good argument, but we know the earth-shattering importance of comma placement, and their ability to completely change the meaning of otherwise clear-sounding language (at least for some people).

Also, note that the only major media outlet that seems to be upset by this is CNN - the "liberal" media supporting gun owners? The guys at ar15.com are praising Lou Dobbs up and down, and most of them are rabid Republicans. What could this possibly be about? Gee, I wonder...

What is the lesson in all of this? We have Republicans arguing for liberal interpretations of firearm statutes (while they fight against liberal interpretations of torture statutes), the "liberal" media fighting for firearm owners, and a Republican executive branch (who oversees the ATF and the federal prosecutors) doing nothing - they pretend to support gun ownership, but they sure aren't showing it. I think that it all stems from people's desire to use "equality under the law" to force their opinions on others. For those who would do this, I will once again refer them to the famous quote by Rev. Martin Niemoller:

First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.

It's high time we all speak up.

Ask the Philosophers

2008-05-09T16:45:00.008-04:00

To understand the Afghanistan/Iraq/Iran/Syria/etc war talk, the wiretapping debacle, the "secret" legal memos of the OLC, and most of the other strange goings-on of the current administration, we could analyze the factors until we are blue in the face. Or, we could just ask Aristotle:

. . . and further, it is part [of the nature of tyranny] to strive to see that all the affairs of the tyrant are secret, but that nothing is kept hidden of what any subject says or does, rather everywhere he will be spied upon . . . . Also it is part of these tyrannical measures to impoverish the nation so as to bolster the funds available for military defense, and so that the common citizens will be occupied with earning their livelihood and will have neither leisure nor opportunity to engage in conspiratorial acts . . . . Thus, the tyrant is inclined constantly to foment wars in order to preserve his own monopoly of power.

This is so accurate that is is somewhat scary. Aristotle is not the only one with important things to say. Consiuder the words of Gottfried Keller, and how they relate to the adnimistration's efforts to convince the populace that their Aristotlian crimes are really sign of patriotism:

That great majorities may be poisoned and ruined by a single person and in response thereto give cause for still more individuals to poison and destroy,–that a majority which has once been lied to, can continue to want to be lied to in the future, and to raise ever more liars upon its pedestal, as if they were only a sole conscious and resolute villain,–that in the end the awakening of the citizen from the error wrought by a majority which he brought upon himself is nothing rosy when the damages commence to pile up–that is something which at this point was yet beyond my contemplation.

And of the "flexibility" of morality when acts are committed by the state, as explained by Seneca:

We are mad, not only individually, but nationally. We check manslaughter and isolated murders; but what of war and the much-vaunted crime of genocide? There are no limits to our greed, and neither to our cruelty. And as long as such crimes are committed by stealth and by individuals, they are less harmful and less portentous; but cruelties are practiced in accordance with acts of the senate or of a popular assembly, and the public is invited to do that which formerly was forbidden to the individual. So we come to this clearest manifestation of insanity: that deeds which rightfully would be punished with a sentence of death when committed by an ordinary man, are suddenly praised and celebrated when committed by a general wearing a uniform.

Oh, where do I find this stuff...

In my readings, I sometimes come across passages that represent my thoughts so exactly that I wonder who is spying on my brainwaves. One such passage is here. It is taken from “The Manner of Kings,” Hekayat 16, written 1258 CE by Persian Muslih-ud-Din Mushrif-ibn-Abdullah (I guess he didn't really steal this from me). It goes like this:

An old Persian wisdom story relates how a fox came to see the jackals, and said, “Brothers, loan me some money. I need to leave the country quickly.” The jackals were surprised. “Surely a fox can survive any political change?” “I have heard,” the fox replied, “that the king has issued an edict that all camels shall now be beasts of burden.” The jackals laughed. “So? You’re a fox!” “You fools,” replied the fox, “all it will take is for my enemies so say I am a camel, and people will come running with loads for me to carry on my back.”

This old Persian fable has obvious relevance today. Horton's application of the fable:

No doubt, journalists and statesmen in animal society seriously debated the “transportation problem.” They debated “what does or does not count as a camel,” “how far and how much weight shall a camel legitimately bear?” and “do international transportation laws apply to camels?” just like we debate “what is torture?” “does stress torture count?” and “how far can one legitimately go in coercing a prisoner?” Meantime, the rest of the animals carried the burden of the unfolding transportation violence which, despite all the talk, never ended.

I love it. Scott Horton is quickly becoming one of my favorites.