Asymmetrical Information

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

Repetition <> truth, exploring "Repetistics"

On the heels my earlier posts on the baseless "140 days of oil" claim about the ANWR, I asked about the related claim that it would take seven years to extract the oil. One reader wrote to me to point out that this analysis likely makes generous allowances for the time needed to fight legal battles over the planned exploration. This is somewhat circular - you shouldn't explore in the ANWR because it will take a long time, it will take a long time because we will fight you in court, and we will fight you in court because..you shouldn't explore in the ANWR. An analogy: A mugger would say it is dangerous to resist him because he will hurt you if you do.

Anyway, it got me to thinking that I should dedicate some time to discussing "repetistics", or questionable little factoids and illogic that are accepted as truth through simple repetition and form the soft logical underbelly of conventional wisdom. Do send me others you come across.

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

Priceless

This is from almostaproverb.com:

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

Krugman alert

The One-Eyed Man is the title of Paul Krugman's column today. As usual, he sounds a little muddled:

So maybe ideology was just another mask for someone who was really the candidate of corporations — not corporations in general, but a small group of companies with a quite specific set of business interests — and who is only pretending to be a hard- line conservative who pretended to be a moderate in order to gain office.

Sorry Paul, I lost track of you there. But I think you are saying Bush is a triple agent. And all of Congress as well, I suppose, since you are talking about the stimulus package.

Then this non-admission of sloppiness:

In last Wednesday's column I said the "original" war bonds were issued during World War II. In fact, war bonds were also issued during the Civil War and World War I. I don't think this affects the argument.

Oh you petty, petty critics.

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

More crude bin Laden humour

...is justified under the circumstances. This doctoring of the infamous Al-Jazeera video is good for a laugh. A quick web search confirms it can be found on this large collection of Osama gags entitled "The America's Mad as Hell Humor Page." That's the spirit!

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

U.N. Can't agree on what terrorism is

Shocker. Good thing they formed the committee.

(This comes via Dropscan. Also from Shiloh Bucher, a link to the Wilson Quarterly on Gore v. Bush bloviating. Thank you, Shiloh.)

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

Just 'cause you say it a lot, doesn't make it true

I notice in the Smarter Times: Letters About the Times section that a Peter Larkin noticed an earlier use of the 140-day myth mentioned in the immediately preceding post:

On page 15 of the Sunday, October 14, 2001 edition of the NYTimes, a news article cites environmentalists' claims that drilling in the Alaskan Wild Life Refuge "would not yield any oil for at least seven years, and would then yield only enough for 140 days." The Times has used this 7 year, 140 days argument in the past on both its news and editorial pages. This particular environmentalist claim has always struck me as dubious at best. In fact, in the same edition of the paper there is a letter to the editor from Frank H. Murkowski, U.S. senator from Alaska, in which the senator says there is enough oil under the Arctic coastal plain to replace 30 years of imports from Saudi Arabia and 50 years of imports from Iraq. He also claims an oil pipeline to deliver oil from the Arctic could be completed in a minimum of one to two years, not seven as the environmentalists argue. Although the Times news article mentions Senator Murkowski, it uses the environmentalists' numbers on the Arctic oil issue, not those of the senator.

The huge discrepancy between the numbers attributed to "environmentalist" and those of the Senator cry out for some explanation. It strikes me as irresponsible to repeat over and over again the environmentalist claims on this issue if there is any chance, as Senator Murkowski suggests, they may not be accurate.

A reader of this site (!), Graeme Hein, also writes in to point out that any one oil field looks useless when measured against total consumption. He calls this a stock tactic of the "enviro-nazis".

This appears to be one of those myths that become truth by repetition, much like the revisionist economic historians who claim growth didn't follow the Kennedy and Reagan (and coolidge) tax cuts. Anyway, I'm glad I was able to put some real numbers into play. If anyone knows Peter, I hope you'll send him this. And if anyone can address the "seven year" claim, which seems ridiculous in light of the rapid development of other oil fields, let me know.

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

The Grey Lady's Oily Bias

An unsupported factoid in Rob Nixon's top-center op-ed about our "Dangerous Appetite for Oil" caught my eye yesterday. Nixon claims that the entire Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would yield "only enough oil for 140 days". A piece from the Heritage Society (just trolling across the spectrum) suggests the ANWR would substitute for "30 years of Saudi Arabian oil imports." They both actually appear to be working with estimates in the range of 10-15 billion barrels. So which is the revealing statistic? As it turns out, the latter. Nixon is off by a factor of more than six times, and even then, his yardstick is not particularly helpful.

First of all, the ANWR itself may support an "expected value of 10 billion barrels using mid 1990s technology" (USGS survey) but the "coastal plain" area of Alaska could provide as much as 42 billion barrels, according to anwr.org.

So how much is that, anyway? In 2000, it is estimated that we imported about 5 million barrels of oil a day from OPEC countries (D.O.E. figures). So using the more conservative ANWR estimates of 10 billion barrels, we could cut off OPEC for about 2000 days, or 5.5 years. If we only cut off Persian Gulf nations, we could double that time span. Incidentally, total oil imports are a little more than double OPEC, or 11 million barrels per day. So 10 billion barrels is actually 910 days of imports.

Now, if we somehow do manage to get 30 or 40 billion barrels out of the coastal plain (we are getting much, much better at this, as this fantastic series in the Atlantic pointed out), we got 20 years on OPEC.

Which brings me back to Rob Nixon's editorial. How does he get the 140 day figure? I don't know, but the Times might consider some fact checking on such a prominently placed op-ed, especially when it supports his breathtaking social engineering goal of "remodeling American consumer desire." There is a clue in Mr. Nixon's bio:

Rob Nixon teaches English and environmental studies at the University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Of course. When I want to remodel consumer desire, I'll go find a cross-discipline academic. Excellent.

I'm surprised Smartertimes didn't pick up this, or the incredible hatchet job on Schundler's education program yesterday. Here's a snippet of that one:

Despite Mr. Schundler's enthusiasm, most education experts say there is almost no evidence that his plan, which is crucial to his financial vision for the state, would generate the cost savings he anticipates.

Even conservative proponents of school choice say that public school budgets do not shrink in proportion to the number of students they lose, the main assumption in Mr. Schundler's plan.

In a transparent attempt to appear unbiased, the Times actually quotes a "conservative" at this point, who makes the unremarkable point that "public school budgets have proved amazingly resistant to shrinkage even with enrollment declines." So schools find a use for public money even when there are fewer students? What a shock! And this is an argument against school choice? Only in the New York Times. And what's with that "most education experts" stuff? Are we to believe the Times did a comprehensive survey? If they did, wouldn't that be the story? Puleese.

The article goes on to adopt one of "only two studies" on school choice, neglecting to say that the two studies contradict each other, and completely ignoring the Harvard Studies supporting the beneficial effects of school choice on public schools in districts that have implemented similar programs.

I am so disappointed in the Times, because I expect so much better of them.

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

Statistically significant chance of abuse of power

This column from insight reminds us that the following people received "random" audits from the IRS during the Clinton Administration:

Juanita Broaddrick, who came forward to accuse Clinton of raping her in 1977
Katherine Prudhomme, who embarrassed Al Gore at citizen forum by asking him to address Clinton’s alleged rape
Bruce Bates, a former director of publications of National Religious Broadcasters
Paula and Stephen Jones, who had an ongoing lawsuit against the president for sexual misconduct. Received audit notice five days after rejecting settlement offer
Margie Gray, a retired businesswoman who criticized the president in an e-mail
Billy Dale, the former director of the White House Travel Office who was fired to create a place for friend of Bill and Hillary Clinton
Christopher Emery, a long-time White House usher who was fired by Hillary Clinton in 1994 during the Travelgate scandal. Ten weeks before his dismissal (presumably for for “disloyalty”), he agreed to submit to an IRS and FBI background check even though he had been checked just three years earlier in 1991. All White House employees are routinely checked every five years
Patricia and Glenn Mendoza. Patricia Mendoza shouted remark at the president during 1996 campaign stop in Chicago
Kent Masterson Brown, an attorney who represented the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons in 1994 to open up Hillary Clinton’s secret health-care task force
William Gazecki, who edited the documentary Waco, the Rules of Engagement
Shelley Davis, a former IRS historian and whistleblower as well as author of Unbridled Power

Every woman who publicly outed/accused Clinton was audited (Flowers, Jones, Broaddrick). If we just look at this alone, the probability of this perfect hit ratio happening "randomly" are roughly 200,000 to 1 (based on 1/100 odds of one being chosen - 3/100 * 2/100 * 1/100). Look at this list, and the list of organizations at the end of the article. If you think the DNA convicted O.J., you gotta at least wonder about this.

Why bring this up now? We just passed into law a significant abridgement of our rights. Our best defense is a long memory of how power is abused, if not by the president or elected leaders themselves, by the people around him.

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

You have the right to remain a terrorist...

Jihad Conducted by the Book is the title of this article, which points out that the highjackings followed many of the prescriptions in a book called "Military Studies in the Jihad Against the Tyrants." Among other things, it advocates targeting "places of sin" (discos, bars) and economic centers.

More intriguing, it appears, the terrorists are encouraged to exploit their rights:

Interrogation and investigation: Every word that the brother utters in the prosecution center makes a negative impact on him, on his colleagues and, later, on the judgment and major decisions....

Once in the prosecution center, however, he should say that he was tortured, deny all his prior confessions and ask that the interrogation be repeated.
.
Prisons and Detention Centers: If an indictment is issued and the trial begins, the brother has to pay attention to the following: Complain to the court of mistreatment while in prison.

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

Back to blogging

Shiloh Bucher'sdropscan is back from a break for her thesis, with a reminder that Romania is the only industrialized nation that has signed the Kyoto accords. A tasty reminder that it is communism, not a lack of international accords, that has turned that nation into an ecological disaster.

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

Right wing radicals prejudiced against free hate speech and liberalization

the New Word Order by Daniel Hannan is a terrific read and I recommend you go read it top to bottom. Many of you probably noticed the histrionics of Bob Herbert in the Times today ("shame, shame", he says, on tax cuts) and the Times' own moralizing about federalizing airport security despite evidence from El Al and Heathrow that resisting knee-jerk federalization might actually not be akin to handing the keys and some C4 to Osama bin Laden. So the language distortions perpetrated by the terminally politically correct are on my mind today.

This process of language bastardization involves linking formerly descriptive terms (such as conservative) to atrocious people with atrocious intentions. Then, having made the link, one questions the general intentions of those under these newly defined labels (like those horrible people who actually want dangerous airports). Hannan describes and illuminates this trend to link "right wing" with stepping on vagrants, putting babies on spikes and the like. He begins:

Last week I heard a BBC correspondent refer en passant to ‘right-wing elements’ in Iran who were sympathetic to the Taleban. And why not? ‘Right-wing elements’, after all, has simply become a handy term meaning ‘baddies’. Never mind that the Iranians in question want to confiscate private property and nationalise the means of production. The fact that they have lined up with Mullah Omar means that they can be neatly bracketed with Israeli hard-liners, Stalinist nostalgics, Timothy McVeigh, Eugene Terre Blanche, the BNP, the Tory party and any other ‘right-wing elements’ that threaten the BBC’s world-view....

...In an appendix to Nineteen Eighty-Four, Orwell discussed how an idea could be made literally unthinkable if there were no proper words to express it. The illustration he gave was the word ‘free’. In Newspeak, free could be used only in the sense of ‘this field is free from weeds’, ‘this dog is free from lice’. Thus, the concept of political freedom disappeared, because no one could put it into words.

Looking back, it was an uncannily prescient example to have chosen. For in recent years this is more or less what has happened to the word ‘free’. To Orwell, writing in 1948, ‘freedom’ still had its traditional meaning of a guarantee against coercion: freedom of speech, freedom of assembly or whatever. Since then, however, ‘freedom’ has come to mean ‘entitlement’: ‘freedom to work’, ‘freedom to use the NHS’, ‘freedom from discrimination’, and so on. Thus, the notion that the state ought not to boss us around becomes harder to convey, and the politician who supports that notion is disadvantaged.

This is an important observation, because Western civilization has shown that "Freedom from" is important as a necessary precondition to any "freedom to" entitlements. This has been a landmark pollution of the term "freedom". More from Hannan:

A similar recalibration of meaning has been at work throughout our political debate. ‘Greed’ now means low taxes, while ‘compassion’ means high taxes. ‘Fairness’ means state-enforced equality, while ‘unfairness’ means an individual’s right to better himself. Any discussion of the relationship between government and citizen is perforce conducted in loaded terms. You can still make the case for greater liberty, but not without sounding rather nasty. A brief glossary will give some indication of what I mean....

....Community: the state — or, more precisely, the state’s bureaucracy. The one thing it emphatically doesn’t mean is a voluntary association of individuals. When people talk of ‘involving the community’, they invariably want more legislation....

...Profit: always a bad thing, but the severity of the term varies according to context. When talking about a supermarket, it simply means greed and exploitation (as in ‘excessive profits’). When discussing trains, however, it means homicidal tendencies, and is thus used as an antonym to safety —which, of course, means more regulation.

Dogmatic: believing in free markets, as in ‘the Tories have a dogmatic attachment to the private sector’. Curiously enough, this is almost precisely the opposite of the old sense. Being dogmatic used to mean believing in something against the evidence. In fact, free enterprise is utterly counter-intuitive: you’d think that a planned economy would be much more efficient than one where everyone was left to do their own thing higgledy-piggledy. But it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the market works in practice. The truth, as Matt Ridley has put it, is that privatisation is not a dogma but a pragma.

Tax cuts: squalid public services. For some reason, talk of tax cuts makes us think not of our tax returns but of our local hospitals. It’s not so much that we believe that there is a direct link between spending and performance; it’s just that the phrase ‘tax cuts’ automatically conjures up a series of images in our minds: leaky school roofs, bodies lying on trolleys in corridors, and pin-striped Tory spivs selling off the playing fields to their friends in the City (see Profit).....

Conservative: Neanderthal. An even more useful term than ‘right-wing elements’ (qv) since it can be applied to both sides in the same conflict. IRA ‘conservatives’ don’t want to disarm, while ‘conservative elements within Unionism’ don’t want to share power with Catholics.

Of course, Hannan is British, so the American lexicon would equate as follows:

tax cuts that lower the overall tax burden, but increase the relative burden on wealthier = "giveaways to the rich"
decreases in the rate of spending growth = "cuts"
resistance to nationalizing 25,000 new employees = "right wing radical extremism"
massive intergenerational wealth redistribution through social security = "savings plan"

Of course, the anti-abortion lobby has done this with "pro-life", but the largely left-leaning politically correct have certainly abused the language the most.

The most significant change in meaning this century? Liberal actually used to mean people like me, who were in favor of reducing government's constraints on enterprise and people. Now, to some, I am a right-wingradicalextremistfundamentalistantiprogressivezealot. Go figure.

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

Veiled Threat

I try not to sponge off other bloggers discoveries too much, but this one, via instapundit, is too good to miss. Veiled but deadly - female fighters who defy Taliban

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

Quote of the day - and some stealth good news for "Fast Track"

This comes via a CSM article about the new global warming negotiations:

Yet the difficulty of trying to reach an agreement should come as no surprise, says Philip Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust, a Washington-based environmental group. "You're trying to change the energy economy of the planet," he says. "No one has ever undertaken a treaty that complicated."

Yes, and the history of highly complex economic planning is so encouraging.

Apparently, at least one Senator, quoted later, feels that we don't have to ratify a treaty to have it take effect. Remember that the Senate is charged with ratification:

Sen. John Kerry (D) of Massachusetts notes that the US has signed treaties in the past, then failed to ratify them. Yet, he says, the treaties still affected US policy. Thus, even if the US fails to ratify the Kyoto Protocols, "this is not a Pyrrhic exercise."

Bills introduced in the House and Senate target power plants that burn fossil fuels, and aim to reduce emissions of four pollutants, two of which - carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide - are greenhouse gases.

Gee. Somehow ratification makes the process a bit more...democratic, don't you think? And these latter bills, good or bad, could they be a spontaneous "unilateral" initiative? Perish the thought.

Oh, and as Columbo would say, "just one more thing"...If President Bush signed a Western Hemisphere free trade treaty, does that mean Kerry doesn't have to ratify it?

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

To the swift...

This is an interesting discussion of the need for airlines to adapt to post 9/11 realities. Southwest Airlines has proven itself once again as the most adaptable of the "notoriously pigheaded" group of U.S. air carriers. They even figured out a substitute for curbside check-in within a week after the attacks.

I only have one quibble with the author. The point applies to any business. The most flexible, the most entrepreneurial, they are the ones that adapt to sea changes. Entrenched organizations become the victims of Schumpeter's "creative destruction". Which sucks if you work at one, but is far outweighed by the benefits of living in an an economy that allows it to happen.

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

Campaign Update

I saw the latest "negative" ad on Mark Green today. All it does is show a picture of Mark Green, then the audio (with transcript) of him saying "I would have done as good or better job as Rudolph Giuliani if I had been in office on September 11". "Really?" appears on the screen. I'm OK with negative ads that hang 'em on their own considered statements. And I'm so sorry Mark didn't have his moment to shine. Life is so unfair. Oh, wait, he did. Hmmm.

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

Only in the U.S. (2)

This CNN article is about Minnesota "street scavenger" Joseph Temeczko. Joe died earlier this month, and:

The will directs that Temeczko's entire estate -- which Wangensteen estimates will total more than $1 million -- should go to New York and be used at the discretion of Mayor Rudy Giuliani and the City Council.

In how many places do first-generation immigrants amass $1 million estates and leave them to charity?

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

Another elitist cry in the dark

Another stupid editorial in the New York Times today. First it claims that federalizing aviation security employees will help revive tourism (??), then this chestnut:

Americans are in no mood for tired, anti-Washington rhetoric at this time. What they want is for the federal government to aggressively ensure the safety of air travel.

Thank God we have the Times to speak for us. And is any of that "tired anti-Washington rhetoric" being voiced by postal employees after watching the dogs in the capitol get tested and treated before they did? Is it me, or does the Times sound sort of desperate in their attempt to be relevant and still hold true to their insular beliefs? I say most of America's in no mood to be spoken for by the elitist New York Times.

OK, so I'm a little aggravated. They endorsed McGreevey for Governor in the companion column. Could they just stick to endorsing Stalin-apologist Mark Green and leave fixing New Jersey's expensive and inadequate school system to those of us who actually live here?

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

Only in the U.S.

I've had an interesting morning. One of the standout players on the under-10 soccer team I coach is an Egyptian boy named Mohammed who goes to an islamic school. I drove him to and from the game today. My son and two hispanic kids (Juan and Umberto) were in the car as well. The other kids began to tease Mohammed about being from Egypt and asked him if he knew Osama bin Laden. While I was getting them to back off, Mohammed launched into a defense of bin Laden (he's a devout muslim, no proof he did it, etc.). The other kids were looking for an authority figure to proclaim bin Laden bad - namely me. I said I believed there was proof, but even if there wasn't, didn't bin Laden praise the men who attacked the World Trade Center? How could a good man do that?

Biting my tongue a little, I asked Mohammed to explain himself a little more, and talk about the teachings of Islam (face it, the Osama argument wasn't going to get us anywhere). He did a pretty good job, illustrating his points with stories from the Koran. He quickly gravitated to the subject of his own country. Mohammed's family is rabidly anti-Israel and anti-Mubarak. His heart seemed to be much more in these arguments. I probed him a little, asking about The Yom Kippur wars, etc. The kid turns out to be pretty knowledgeable. He also has nothing but venom for Anwar Sadat. How many ten year olds hate assassinated political leaders of 30 years ago? I finally prompt him to say that what he and his family want more than anything is a new democratic regime in Egypt. I point out that Osama bin Laden and the Taliban want anything but democracy. It seems Mohammed's hope is that one of these terrorists will finally provoke a revolution that changes things for the better in Egypt and other Arab countries. By any means necessary, I suppose.

In most any other country we would not be in the car together. Mohammed and his family are probably regarded with suspicion wherever they go. But he's here in my car and he feels safe expressing himself to a near stranger. I really like this bright-eyed, knowledgeable, articulate kid, who runs his butt off on the soccer field. I hope his ability to learn and think leads him to consider the terrorism question from a different angle.

Richard Todd says our diversity can keep us from feeling a sense of belonging. But I sure feel like I belong in the culture that threw Mohammed, Juan and Roberto together with me and my son for that car ride.

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

Would we have more "culture" if everyone were like Richard Todd?

Richard Todd writes a column in tomorrow's Times Magazine. Like Daniel Schorr's, its sort of a non-opinion, but get this:

Culture in recent years has become to a large extent a matter of individual choice and expression. To be an American means figuring out how to be an American. We are, as the French would say, bricoleurs in our own culture -- we pick and choose, paste together, make it up as we go along. We shop. The consumerism that is our great shared activity operates chiefly as an opportunity to express our differences, carve out a private identity. And in turn we rely on a commodified understanding of one another. You're a real-estate broker who buys at Barneys, is into hip-hop and follows the teachings of L. Ron Hubbard? Cool. You know Sallie? She's the vegan Sufi software engineer who collects antique hat boxes. To have the freedom to declare your own ''style'' in things and in ideas is marvelous, isn't it? But why does it not always seem like freedom? In part, I think, because somewhere in the recesses of the mind we're haunted by the realization that the more we make our separate peace with our culture, the less sustenance that culture has to offer us all. What exactly do we belong to?

What do we belong to? The good ol' kick-ass U.S. of A.!! Your lack of belonging is your own distress at everyone not thinking the same way. Our diversity of interests and identities contributes plenty of culture for me. I love being able to surf all the weblogs and watch all the different people do their thing in the city. Its an overdose of culture, whether Todd thinks the culture is "serious" or not. That whole "thousand points of light" idea wasn't as silly as people made it sound, I think.

This is zero-sum thinking. Todd seems to think our differences subtract from each other. I just don't. The market in this country relentlessly delivers what people want. If its not what you want, C'est la vie. Some people care more about Dolphins than employment. I bet you can find the culture you want and the like-minded folks that make you "feel like you belong", Richard. Maybe you don't get out enough?

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go out with my flaky vegan Sufi friend Sallie.

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

This is how it will end for aspiring Mohammed Attas

John Balzar of the L.A. Times recalls meeting a former Red Brigade terrorist in Cuba in 1994. The former scourge of Italy was begging for shoes in the only country that would have him.

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

Required reading for would-be followers of Osama bin Laden

The Christian Science Monitor provides a history of U.S. policy towards Israel and the Middle East since recognizing Israel over General Marshall's objections in 1948. The historical irrelevance to the U.S. of OBL's "80 years" comment, the U.S. role in the Suez, etc. all make clear how historically empty Al Quaeda's Jehad rationale is.

Some interesting historical asides in here as well, such as Nixon's comment when he learned of Egypt and Syria's attack on Israel in 1973:

The president was confident the Israelis would win, as, "thank God, they should." Then he lamented the logical outcome. The Israelis "will be even more impossible to deal with than before," Nixon moaned.

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

Feel my pain

Daniel Schorr takes President Bush to task for a "lack of candor", implying that Dubya should tell us more about how horrible these anthrax attacks are:

His remark Tuesday, after a meeting with congressional leaders, that "this country is too strong to allow terrorists to affect the lives of our citizens," has a Pollyanna ring to the many whose lives have been severely affected....

It is not clear whom he intended to reassure when he said, "I'm going to work tomorrow, too."....

But Americans are looking for more candor about the nation's grim situation than word that the president is healthy and that, even if a remote White House mail facility may show anthrax bacteria traces, the Oval Office does not.

Why should we require touchy-feeliness from our President? To borrow from the Leadership Challenge, Leaders challenge the process, inspire a shared vision, enable others to act, model the way, and encourage the heart. I don't see "whine about conditions" in there. Bush is supposed to show us that he is not afraid of the attacks on him and that he is carrying on. Those of us who were downtown on September 11 got to see our colleagues, bosses and friends live up to this modeling behavior or not. At what point were we supposed to sit around "acknowledging our grim situation"? And what good would it have done? Schorr goes on to point out that we haven't brough Al Quaeda to justice, and seems to suggest Bush should acknowledge failure.

It seems to me the media and congress have been doing a good job of exaggerating how big a threat the current spate of anthrax attacks pose. It would be unseemly of the President to get on TV and start feeling sorry for himself. We don't need the President to feel our pain. We don't need him to tell us that worrying about opening our mail sucks. We need him to tell us that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

Come to the Euro side, Luke

One sign of a unified Europe, according to the Christian Science Monitor - lots of kids named Lucas, in one form or the other:

From one end of the continent to the other, a record number of boys are being christened Lucas.

At least, that is what they are called in France, where Lucas was the second-most popular name for baby boys last year, according to a just-published study. In Germany and Austria, where the name tops the list, they spell it Lukas. In Sweden it is climbing the charts, and in Italy the local version, Luca, is spreading fast. In England, Luke came in at No. 9.

For girls, Chloe has united England and France as surely as the channel tunnel, being the most popular name for newborns in England and the second-most popular in France, according to predictions for 2001.

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

That was quick

I wonder how much support we were giving to Abdul Haq, who was apparently captured by the Taliban as he drummed up resistance in Afghanistan.

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

Your epidermis is showing

Fredrik Norman points out thislittle article about a gentle hoax on the Green Party in New Zealand.

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

Can't you find someone who likes stepping in dog shit?

FAIR goes to great lengths to suggest that coverage of the social security debate has been biased. Their evidence? Most people quoted see some advantages in privatization. Well, you can believe that's bias, if you like. I think it's because most of us realize that the return on social security for most people, and certainly everybody under 45, sucks. You can buy an inflation-protected treasury instrument with the money and get double the return on top of the inflation protection. You know, I bet you'd have a hard time finding pundits or interviewees to say having a 16 acre hole in downtown Manhattan is a good thing. This is another example of "outcomes = proof of bias" reasoning.

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

Going Bio-Postal

In prior posts, I have pointed out that irradiation and UV light could be a solution to postal bioterrorism. Well, The AP reports that the Postal Service is "looking into it". Don't wait around:

To be practical, such a system would have to send letters past the radiation source at the rate of several a second, Doyle said, adding: ``I can't see one developing an irradiation unit that would accommodate that.''

Others worry about security and environmental problems, especially if radiation is used.

``There are also some other issues that have to be dealt with, like the creation of ozone, which is a workplace hazard,'' said Wenonah Hauter, director of the Public Citizens Energy and Environmental Program.

The energy for some irradiation devices comes from radioactive isotopes, while others require only an electrical source.

Many say cost will prove the biggest obstacle, especially for the financially strapped Postal Service.

Edward Hudgins examines this idea on the Cato Institute's website, and points out that private agencies such as Pitney Bowes already offer mail security services. Naturally, this becomes an argument for privatizing the post office.

If course, if you are the New York Times you think the Post office is already privatized....

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

Taliban allies from Pakistan killed

The Atlantic Monthly cites two news items about Pakistanis that have been killed fighting alongside the Taliban

U.S. informants "were credited today with aiding" an air strike on a home in Kabul that "killed 22 members of a Pakistani militant group," which has "vowed to help defend" bin Laden and the Taliban. Pakistani military officials "said on-the-ground intelligence sources identified the building where the group was meeting." They relayed that info to U.S. commanders "who hastily ordered the strike" (Branigin/Chandrasekaran, Washington Post, 10/25).
The Pakistani gov't was "forced by rioting mobs to accept the bodies of eight" Harkat-ul-Mujahideen terrorists "killed in air raids over Kabul" on 10/22 for burial in Pakistan. "Thirty-five Harkat terrorist were killed" when the U.S. bombed the house where they were meeting. Pakistan "initially refused to let the bodies in, since accepting them would legitimize the charges that Pakistanis were fighting alongside the Taliban" (India Deccan Chronicle, 10/25).

In other parts of the same report, there are indications of Taliban operations actually being run from a small town in Pakistan. Like black market economies, certain areas of developing nations are out of reach of their governments, which will make it harder to enforce the "with us or against us" doctrine.

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

An appropriate response

Here is the letter received by Tom Daschle's office:

Here is an appropriate rejoinder:

You will never stop us We have these principles You kill each other off faster than we ever would Are you afraid of secretaries in tall buildings? Death to tyrannical stupidity

(link for bill of rights)

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

Sterilizing mail and catching rays

Remember this blog o' mine? It took a while, but my company and others are looking into UV machines like this for their mail rooms.

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

For accountability and strong police (in a sensitive, Naderite way)

Smarter Times today delves into the Times' desription of NY mayoral candidate Mark Green's 1982 apologia for Joseph Stalin. I found it interesting that Green's TV ads are positioning Green as....Rudy Giuliani. The three platforms in his ad are - beef up the police, reform schools, and pay teachers for performance. Come to think of it, maybe he's running as Bret Schundler? Changing one's spots to co-opt the opposition's playbook is not a new strategy (Clinton), But Green's undergone a Republican organ transplant.

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

Federal Funding Shown to Tighten Vocal Chords

I listen to an odd mixture of shock jocks and NPR during my daily commute. Has anyone noticed that everyone on NPR talks in the same breathy tone? What is it about this outlet that makes everyone from Terry Gross to the host of St. Paul Sunday Morning, talk in a tone akin to a stage whisper? Don't get me wrong, NPR goes into many stories in depth, unlike so many other outlets. But the breathy tone, combined with the tendentious, pseudo-hypersensitive, polysyllabic angst is just hysterical sometimes. "Oh Mr. Zuckerman, the delicate tone you produced in the opening passages of the Kreutzer Sonata, when you played at the benefit for victims of oil-based moisturizers, reminded me of a row of ants proceeding up a broken cement wall in the poverty-ridden barrios of Caracas.....Do you often think of the smaller hard-working members of the animal kingdom when you play?"

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

Credible Leadership

The Taliban claims we are targeting civilians. Apparently, their soldiers don't believe the leaders, and are hiding out in civilian locations. So our actions have more credibility than their leaders. This is a good sign for us. When leaders don't have credibility, organizations fold under outside pressure. Hey, Hastert and Gephardt - hear that?

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

Chair-man of the IRS

Fredrik Norman points to this article about an overzealous IRS agent, armed with a chair...but no code or rulings. The agent apparently attacked someone he was investigating. My source, Fredrik Norman is 19, from Norway, and a superior blogger.

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

Hole smoking

yuk, but nothing's out of bounds when making fun of OBL.

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

Virtuecrat

Margery Eagan coins this term in an article about the Hillary booing on Saturday at Madison Square Garden. The full context:

self-proclaimed virtuecrat and humanitarian, most meritorious of the meritocracy, smartest of the smart set, chief priestess of right-thinking, diversity-university, holier-than-thou know-it-alls who surely know that it takes a village and if you don't know it too you are, simply, a knuckle-dragging member of the vast right-wing conspiracy of dunces.

I don't think Ms. Eagan likes her, do you? Hillary's been a bit over-demonized, but I guess she's come to stand for a virulent strain of political correctness. A strain that I would happily tar with Eagan's language. I did hear a recording of Ms. Clinton's 30 seconds, and she didn't handle it well. Kind of like the schoolteacher Sister Mary Elephant in Cheech & Chong's Weeding Album: "Class....class....SHUT UUUUUUP!!!"

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

Sherlock Holmes they ain't

Instapundit points out that plastic.com has done an analysis of the helicopter wreckage:

there is more available evidence casting doubt on the Taliban's assertions than the crack CNN research team managed to turn up. As the CNN article notes, pieces of the wreckage in question are labeled 'Boeing' and 'Loud Engineering.' Problem is, the only Boeing helicopters that use a Loud Engineering landing gear assembly, as displayed by the Taliban, are the CH-46 Sea Knight and the CH-47 Chinook -- both large heavy-lift transport helicopters, unlikely choices for an air assault operation, for which one of the Sikorsky H-60 Blackhawk variants would generally be employed. Of course it took about three minutes to track that down, and who at a major media outlet has that kind of time? Maybe the Taliban actually shot down three US helicopters and they're smugly saving that revelation for later?"

Got to be embarassing for the folks in Atlanta.

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

Reserves in Reserve

The Economist has added a) this nifty piece on Afghanistan's Opium Reserves and b) this comment on the oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. The first article claims that Afghanistan's opium reserves have a street value of $80 billion. These reserves are actively managed by the Taliban, of course.

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

Cool!

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

...and let fley a fart, as 'twere a thunder dent

An article by Clay Rossi in Accuracy in Media re-tells the plot of The Lawyer's Tale from Chaucer's Canterbury Tales:

Amongst the bawdy stories of love and lust, Chaucer gives us the tale of the man of law (or lawyer's tale) which deals with an Islamic encounter, something the men of Chaucer's day were quite familiar with. In brief, the lawyer tells of a sultan who, through his merchants and traders, becomes aware of the most lovely princess in all of Christendom, fair Constance of Rome. To win her hand, however, the sultan must adopt Christianity. He goes a step further and declares that his whole dominion will adopt the Christian faith. Upon returning with his bride, a wedding banquet is held but it is interrupted by a bloody coup led by the sultan's own mother, culminating in the death of all the Islamic apostates and the banishment of Constance from their land in a most horrific manner.

This is indeed an allegorical instruction on dealing with Islam. Rossi suggests that history will repeat itself, and that siding with Islamic moderates will further inflame the extremists, as it was known to do in Chaucer's day. It has to date, but I do not accept the instruction in its entirety. One could easily switch religions around and tell a similar story (think Henry VIII for more of a real life example). The story does suggest, as Rossi points out, how the interest in trade may blend cultures, but fundamentalism in cultures can cause a blood bath in reaction.

May favorite quote from Chaucer heads this entry. It's from the Miller's Tale. I couldn't remember, but I looked it up here. The line describes the events just subsequent to a doltish suitor's blindly planting his lips on what he thinks is his beloved's face..but he knows "full well the woman hath no baird". This Tale is the sine qua non of Chaucerian bawdiness. I wonder, Mr. Rossi, what historical instruction he was giving in that one?
.

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

More on Lomborg

The Washington Post reviewed my most recent favorite book. I couldn't agree more with the conclusion: "The Skeptical Environmentalist is the most significant work on the environment since....in 1962. It's a magnificent achievement."

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

The market at work

"The classical recording industry seems to be collapsing, and aggrieved music lovers are looking for someone to blame."

These are the words of Anthony Tommasini of the New York Times. Classical record labels are downsizing right and left, simply because they aren't making money with the vast majority of their catalogue. The classical catalogue includes about 60,000 (often redundant) titles, while its share of CD sales has decreased from 7% to 3%.

Many of my friends who also love classical music find this a tragedy. Tommasini seems to end his article with a shake of his head and a suggestion that "the Internet is here to stay. If we want classical recordings to survive, we may just have to embrace it." Well, yes. Alternate means of distribution sure can shake up an industry.

Classical music's demise is the fault of the listeners, the artists and the concert venues. It is the Cadillac of the music business, in the sense that it refuses to evolve from catering to an aging but wealthy demographic. My wife and I subscribe to several series at Carnegie Hall and elsewhere. At roughly 40 we are bringing the average age down substantially. Concert-goers noisily unwrap cough drops and contract 30-second cases of Tuberculosis between movements. We are all too close together and, the burden of silence weighs heavily on everyone. We make Wimbledon spectators look like soccer hooligans. And, as Tommasini points out, we don't need a 6th or 7th recording of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony. If we did, there are 100 or so to choose from.

We have to remember this is not how classical music gained popularity. Chamber music, literally played in one's living room, and the amateur musician were a big part of this art form. It was not, as now, primarily a rarified prop for the elite, a place to be seen and to have your credentials taken. A century ago if they didn't like something they booed it off stage (this, in fact, happened to Stravinsky). Now, if a young composer with the right sponsorship flung cow dung into the audience while blowing a kazoo in his pants, the audience would clap politely and roll their eyes over dinner at the Russian Tea Room afterwards. Then they would look for a "safer"series next year. As a marketplace, too many of us are asleep. No wonder the artists sometimes have trouble getting inspired for a performance.

There are already signs of new life, much bemoaned by the competing establishment. Labels like Chandos and Hyperion put out records of less explored works, and offer great production values (terrific sound, for instance). You realize, when listening to these newer labels, that the definitive recording does not have to be Barenboim or Zuckerman. Also, vital artists, such as Yo-Yo Ma, are using their appeal to draw in more listeners, "crossing over" and experimenting with new forms. We see the same organizational phenomenon here as elsewhere, namely that big companies are good at delivering products the marketplace tells you specifically it wants, in a survey or marketing study. Smaller organizations are better at stimulating demand for newer concepts (although Sony broke the mold with the Walkman). The latter approach, creating demand, is riskier, but economically more explosive and more fun.

It isn't the music. Classical repertoire often seeps into the mass consciousness. Barber's Adagio for Strings was made wildly popular by Platoon, even showing on the pop charts. After Amadeus, Mozart's symphonies were heard everywhere. So much of the classical repertoire can inspire deep feelings, and is rewarding to the repeat listener. It can be rebellious, soothing, tragic or though provoking. It doesn't just make you wish you had gone to the bathroom during the intermission. While it may be downsized first, we will someday read about the "renaissance of classical music". There we will find the people who capitalized on the innate appeal of this art form, rather than rather than its establishment fund-raising appeal. Innovators will use all the new media, technology and marketing available to them. I say, let the market evolve. A dramatic change in the production of new CDs doesn't threaten the music, only the halfhearted way we consume it.

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

All we are saying, is give aerial bombing a chance

Jonah Goldberg writes a funny piece about cliches. Here's one:

"Give peace a chance." What exactly do the people who say this think we were doing right up until 8:48 a.m. on Sept. 11? We gave peace a chance and now we're going to give war a shot.

We should remember that the actual lyric from the John Lennon song is, "All we are saying is give peace a chance." Exactly. That is all they are saying, which is about as helpful as saying "give pistachio ice cream a chance." There are no useful suggestions to be found in "give peace a chance" when the other side has dedicated itself to a bloody holy war against American men, women and children.

Now, if someone wants to write a song that goes something like: "All we are saying is give a sustained aerial bombing with coordinated ground assaults a chance" that might be helpful.

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

Check out these reports from Afghanistan

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

If I don't have any principles, can I have $10 million?

Photodude destroys the money-grubbing and hypocritical representative McKinney from Georgia. In case you don't remember, she's the one going after the $10 milllion Giuliani turned down.

For Sale: One Congressperson - I let this news item slide when it first came up, but Representative Cynthia McKinney of Georgia is persistent in her campaign to kiss up in the name of $10 million. In case you haven't heard, a recap: "It was revealed then that she had written a letter to Prince Alwaleed bin Talal to apologize for New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani rejecting bin Talal's donation because the prince had questioned U.S. policy in the Middle East. McKinney also wrote bin Talal that she knew many charities that help the poor and people of color in America and that her office would be happy to steer him to some of those charities." Despite the outrage since then, yesterday she announced she would be meeting with the Prince's representatives in her chase for the dough. While it might in some way sound "charitable" to seek money for the "the poor and people of color", let's take a close look at her letter to the Prince, if we can bear it. Careful, it's pretty deep, so watch what you step in....

"I was disappointed that Mayor Rudy Giuliani chose to decline your generous offer and instead criticize you for your observations of events in the Middle East. Whether he agreed with you or not I think he should have recognized your right to speak and make observations about a part of the world which you know so well."

Excuse me, in what way did Guliani deny the Prince the right to speak? I saw the Prince on three different TV interviews in which he pushed his linkage of sorrow for 9-11 and criticism of US policy. His message got through to me loud and clear long before Guliani literally bid him adieu on his way out of the country. He'd had his say elsewhere. In front of Guliani, he didn't have the balls to speak his mind, he tacked a "press release" onto the printed copy of his actual speech, passed out to the press after he'd left.

"Your Royal Highness, [as she refers to him four times, despite the fact he is one of 7,000 Saudi princes] many of us here in the United States have long been concerned about reports by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch that reveal a pattern of excessive, and often indiscriminate, use of lethal force by Israeli security forces in situations where Palestinian demonstrators were unarmed and posed no threat of death or serious injury to the security forces or to others."

Ms. McKinney is apparently a very selective reader. Amnesty International also has extensive reports about the abuses perpetrated by the Prince's family, reports of repression, beatings, amputations, and killings, simply for the crime of ethnicity, religion, or gender.

Ms. McKinney would be a target on each count. Forced to cover herself completely, leave her home only with a male escort, and otherwise suffer the second class status of all non-royal women in Saudi Arabia. Persecuted because of her color, her place of birth, and her religion. She'd be lucky to survive a month under the government of the kind generous Prince's family.

I found photodude courtesy of Matt Welch's searches (see post below).

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

If God is all powerful, can he make a rock so big that he himself can't lift it?

This is the question that catholic students pose to their teachers. It can be rephrased as the central probem with moral relativism:

If we must respect all other cultures and hold them equal, should we respect and hold equal a culture that holds our values of multiculturalism and racial/gender equality in violent contempt?

In this article Cathy Young examines the conflict between the west-hating fringe of feminism and multiculturalism, and how it is at odds with itself over that very question.

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

The cost of giving away what we already gave away?

The Times editorial today on the tax bill in congress throws logic out the window. Check out this reasoning:

For example, eliminating the corporate alternative minimum tax, at a cost of $25 billion in 2002, would not guarantee a single cent of new investment. It would simply give money to businesses that usually find a way to elude taxes through deductions and loopholes anyway. Indeed, misdirected corporate tax breaks could even hamper growth by reducing corporate taxes on the state level, forcing states that are required by law to balance their budgets to cut spending. Lower spending would hinder economic recovery.

Huh? If corporations don't pay a tax now, how does it cost $25 billion to eliminate that tax? If true, it sounds more like costless simplification. Better they should worry about out-of-work accountants. Also, exactly what is the relationship between federal corporate taxation and state revenues/spending/taxation? It amazing how the Times thinks that if a government gets money from taxation they will spend it productively, but if a corporation gets money it goes into some unspecified economic sinkhole? Companies I know employ people, buy from vendors, and make capital expenditures, which in turn increases other companies' resources. Those companies buy and invest, etc. A long way from Keynes' ditch-digging fiscal stimulus.

The article also repeats the out-and-out lie that Greenspan is against a capital gains tax. Greenspan is on record in favor of such a break, and believes it would be a stimulus. He argued that there is already enough stimulus (monetary) and we don't need more now.

Its also interesting to see the Times make an argument about deficits and interest rates. So they are monetarists now? I suppose they don't remember their position on this issue in the 1980s.

I'm not a big fan of the current tax bill, but the Times needs to distinguish between their desired wealth re-distribution and effective economic stimuli. They are very different, and no amount of elitist hopefulness and logic-bending will change that fact.

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

Inescapable and Irrevocable

Anthony Lewis' op-ed in the times today falls prey to the usual breathy hyperbole of the politically correct, and conveys the usual special understanding (appropriately a "grasping" in this case) on its author:

After Sept. 11 it was said by many that our world had irrevocably changed. That is true in a sense that we have not yet grasped.

You would never know from the beginning, but this article revisits two points: 1) eradicating terrorism will require eradicating poverty and 2) the US needs to pump up its foreign aid and "foreign policy". He skirts the issue of "poverty casuses terrorism" pointing out that OBL and his henchmen are "apocalyptic". Lewis' starts to raise some interesting points, although he doesn't go deep enough, and his tone continues to be preachy.

To revisit U.S. aid - look at Zaire, where Mobutu appropriated most of the aid for himself. Look at Afghanistan, where, until the Taliban took power, we provided more aid than any other country. Look at Egypt, which bred so many of the "apocalyptic". Did it help? Lewis' does admit: "We have learned by now, or should have, that the best-intended designers of aid programs can make ghastly mistakes in their sophisticated plans." That is for sure. He goes on to recommend AIDS prevention and debt forgiveness.

I agree that we will live with less threat of terrorism if there is less poverty. I think more individual liberties in any of dozens of countries would work even faster. Giving corrupt governments money is a waste of time. Giving people money (direct relief) is a band-aid, giving them individual liberties and hope will resolve this.

Hernando DeSoto wrote an interesting book called The Mystery of Capital, in which he documents how difficult it is to create a living for yourself in any number of undevelped countries. Settting up a magazine stand in Peru can take years. He also examines the total value locked up in third world homes and black market economies. He compellingly points out that property rights, a reliable legal system to arbitrate them, and the ability to monetize residential and business assets would unlock trillions of dollars in these economies. The problem, of course, is that necessary reforms shake up the current order. So the stasists, the Mubaraks, Assads et.al. are scared to do it.

DeSoto's argument is the modern equivalent of the "give a man a fish, teach a man to fish" parable. Throwing money at these countries has made things worse. We don't have enough money to cure poverty with handouts, but some focused effort would multiply the dollars spent. The UN should stop worrying about israel's supposed racism and start how to maintain stability while making necessary reforms to developing economies. Democracies don't attack democracies. Prospering countries prefer not to go to war. Democracies can be shamed into reducing racism within their borders. The Times should add this Peruvian economist to their Op-Ed columnists.

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

Would you like to wear a hair shirt? yes no

Patrick Ruffini's site highlights the results of some online polls given to islamic net surfers he found on ajeeb.com (loads too slow for me to look):

Here are some of the results: "Would you accept like under the Taliban regime?" 54% Yes, 36% No. It gets worse. "Do you think Osama bin Laden should hand himself over to avoid further bloodshed?" 12% Yes, 82% No. "Do you think Usama Bin Laden is responsible for the attacks on NY & Washington?" 9% Yes, 80% No. .... Some Arab and Muslim women’s rights groups have called upon Arab governments to abolish polygamy, in line with Islamic Sharia that stipulates equality amongst wives, which is unattainable in this age. Some Muslim countries have begun to legislate such laws. Do you support the legislation of laws prohibiting polygamy? 22% Yes, 78% No.

I wonder if mormons have been getting on and inflating the numbers on that last one? And which one is responsible, Usama or Osama? Kidding aside, there is some truth to Ruffini's statement that this is a holy war and we didn't start it.

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

Hot Mama for Osama!

"Taliban Singles" is good for a laugh.

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

Well Said

Alex Knapp's posts the following quote of the day on his 'blog, Heretical Ideas:

"Look at America; the country they exult at having wounded so grievously. Can you name a country that ever amassed more power and abused it less? Can you name a country that ever amassed more wealth and distributed it more fairly? Can you name another country that was ever attacked by surprise as America was in 1941, rallied to defeat both powerful enemies, and wound up with less land than it had previously? (America gave the Philippines its independence after victory in World War II.) Can you name another country that, after victory, treated its allies and enemies alike to massive rehabilitation and rebuilding? Instead of rape and plunder we gave Germany and Japan democracy implants. They're both strong and prosperous democracies today. And you call that 'satanic'?" -- Barry Farber

If this is heresy, count me in!

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

Plug Away!

I was mentioned in Matt Welch's warblog last night! Or 1:14 this morning, if I see correctly. Thank you Matt. I'll return the favor with a quote (there is already a link to the left) to point out all the other interesting stuff he's found, some of which is new to these pages:

These are all more than worthy of your attention, and I daresay they represent a very interesting phenomenon: First, there’s the eponymous mainstays of Ken Layne, Tony Pierce, Amy Langfield and my own beloved Emmanuelle Richard. Then, there’s Nick Denton’s Blogorama, Glenn Reynolds’ InstaPundit, Jeff Jarvis’ WarLog, Fred Lapides’ Bushwacker, Bjørn Stærk’s The World After WTC, Thomas Nephew’s Newsrack (he also speaks German!), Charles Johnson’s Little Green Footballs, Steven Den Beste's USS Clueless, Reid Stott’s PhotoDude, 'Mindles H. Dreck'’s More Than Zero, Gabrielle Taylor’s Moonfarmer, and Shiloh Bucher’s dropscan. There’s also Fredrik Norman and Oliver Willis, some 29-year-old literary Aussie dude who does A Bright Cold Day in April, and a brand new guy (I think!) who does Rallying Point. You might already know about Andrew Sullivan and Virginia Postrel, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t read them every day. You might not yet know Mark Woods’ wood s lot or Brian Lamb’s Blowback, so give them a shot, too. Perhaps most intriguingly of all, there is this new blog concerning rabbits … I think I smell some long-overdue Silverlake cooking! I hope I haven't screwed up the names and addresses, but my eyes are getting bleary. One random thing I’ve noticed – a lot of these people (including the rabbit?) play the guitar.

¶ 10/19/2001 01:14:20 AM

You should check out these folks. Many of 'em are more inventive than I. I just hope we aren't all becoming too....well...self-referential (is that a term?).

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

Reality Check

Kim Strassel writes in the WSJ about how the WTC collapse finally forced the EPA to put the risks of asbestos in perspective. As she points out, the risks of asbestos are smaller than their standards have suggested. Of course, it took the risk of panic to get them to admit it. The EPA is just one in a long list of organizations that needs to put risks and the costs of abating those risks in reasonable balance. I'm not sure this is the thin end of the wedge, unfortunately.

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

Extraordinary Alignment

Russia's agreement yesterday to sell substantial amounts of oil to the U.S. was overshadowed by military cooperation. But this is important, because it frees us somewhat from potential events in Saudi (see continuing discussion of' Hashemite restoration in Saudi on Instapundit). Bush's trip to China was well covered.

We have obviously had disagreement with these countries, but their interests in siding with the US are clear. China and Russia are both "secular" powers, for starters, and they are as terrified of religious fundamentalism as the ACLU. Furthermore, the best "opportunism" this war offers is to align with the U.S. and have your country's democracy-craving populace rally behind you. Every developed country leader is favor of democracy and free markets (as the only proven roads to peace, enhanced wealth and quality of life) as long as it doesn't jeopardize their own power. For Vladimir Putin or Jiang Zemin, this is a move in the right direction that may actually enhance rather than threaten their stability. And, yes, there are some diplomatic favors to earn. So what.

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

Awwh, toy go boom?

We say Baseer al-Masri, an aide to OBL, was killed in a bombing raid. The Taliban says a grenade went off in his hands. Actually, I like their version better. Good riddance. Link here:CNN.com - U.S. official: U.S. troops in Afghanistan - October 19, 2001

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

love/hate

Bjorn Staerk points out this editorial in Arabnews.com. Much like Saudi, I find its perspective on the U.S....vague. Bjorn's weblog is here

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

A More Nimble Attack

CNN.com reports that troops have "hit the ground" in Southern Afghanistan. It appears these are still largely special ops personnel. To be taking the Taliban on in their home territory, with small bands of highly mobile forces, is a very different war than the Soviet Union fought here. If Al Quaeda was hoping for the Soviet style of invasion, it appears they won't get it. Good. Defying their expectations works in our favor.

Also some interesting reports/interviews with defectors today. While we shouldn't be surprised to hear defectors say what their new pals want to hear, they speak of the Taliban and Osama bin Laden as synonymous.

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

Today's Labeling Surprises

This guy Dr. Zinlander was on NPR again today (you may remember my October 4 blog about his comments on medical error rates a few weeks ago). Can't they find another medical expert? Anyway, he said that "if the terrorism distracts us from dealing with the many uninsured elderly, the terrorists will have won another victory".

O yeah, I can see that. Imagine Osama and his psycho rich-boy pals are holed up in some stinky bunker, trying to cook rodents and insects over Sterno. Bin Laden says to Abou-Gheith: "Hey, did you see that the democrats aren't writing a new healthcare reform bill? Score another one for Al Quaeda (high five)!" Much dancing and cheering.

Also, Richard Butler asserts in the New York Times: "Let's call it what it is: Sending mail laced with anthrax is an act of terrorism." Wow. Goin' out on a limb, there Dick. He concludes: "We need the facts. The politics will then follow." Suffice it to say this is not a revealing op-ed. The 'blog community produces more interesting stuff.

These folks need a broader perspective.

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

More on the fallacy of "the new bush"

Cal Thomas takes up the topic MTZ addressed yesterday, the supposed transformation of Dubya:

How is it possible for a C student (as the press constantly reminded us of Bush's academic achievement) who was a ``party boy'' through early adulthood to transform himself overnight into someone who thinks and acts like a president should? Those skills must have always been there. The question the media should be asking is how and why they missed them. Instead, they are predictably writing about the ``new'' Bush. Already we're seeing a few journalists reverting to type. Like the Democrats, the media read the polls. They don't want to be accused of ruining the new bipartisanship in Washington. The same New York Times, which editorially heaped praise on Bush for his ``gravitas'' last Friday, a day later faulted him for ``partisanship'' in promoting new tax cuts to stimulate the economy and the search for new sources of energy in Alaska to lessen U.S. dependence on Arab oil.

I've always found a suspension of disbelief is necessary when reading the Times' attempts to characterize anything. Perhaps they should publish a dictionary of adjectives according to the Times. Then we could find out what absolute meaning, if any, "moderate" and "partisan" actually have in those pages.

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

And now, in other news...

Two items caught my eye in the Wall Street Journal yesterday:

1) The Labor Department is finally enforcing the 1988 Beck decision. So you can be a Union member and not have your money used to support political candidates with whom you may or may not agree. You might even be able to give money to whomever you please! Heavens. It is about time.

2) Here's a bit from Colin Powell's editorial on TPA giving the absolute truth:

International Trade supports personal freedom. The market requires governments to set realistic rules, then stand back to let millions of individuals make their own decisions [emphasis mine]. This basic economic freedom, in turn, can become the thin end of a wedge for reducing restrictions in other areas of life

Colin Powell, dynamist!

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

The Real Gripe

The Economist, as usual, sums up the real causes of mid-east hatred for America:

Militant Islam despises the West not for what it does but for what it is. If American “imperialism” were the principal bone of contention, why should the United States be so much more despised than the Soviet Union ever was, or than Russia still is, despite the fact that Russia rules over millions of Muslims who would rather not be its subjects? Europe, not America, you might argue, had “imperial” ambitions in the Middle East even after independent states had been created in the region: America crushed those ideas by humiliating Britain and France during the Suez crisis of 1956. Israel notwithstanding, America's supposed crimes of foreign policy in the region are utterly incommensurate with the hatred directed against it.

The truth is, America is despised mainly for its success; for the appealing and, critics would say, corrupting alternative it presents to a traditional Islamic way of life; and for the humiliation which many Muslims feel when they consider the comparative failure, in material terms, of their once-mighty civilisation. It helps Arab governments no doubt to blame that failure on outsiders. Plenty of western intellectuals are happy to agree that the economic plight of North Africa and the Middle East is more to do with American oppression than with its real, domestic, causes. (Causes that do not include Islam, by the way: blame decades of socialism followed by statism, corruption and incompetence.) Yet to think this way—to see the West as an infidel oppressor and capitalist exploiter, rather than as a partner with whom a fruitful friendship is possible—is to rule out all possibility of peaceful coexistence. Arab leaders and their western apologists should reflect on that.

The Economist is right. How else can you explain that this event follows 12 years in which we pushed Israel harder than ever to the negotiating table, including the critical concessions of the Oslo accords and subsequent negotiations? One might as easily argue that this was caused by our movement on Israel than our intransigence. The article continues:

Still, Muslims who think the West must be fought and defeated are not going to be bombed into changing their minds, that's for sure. And they are probably not going to be talked into changing their minds by outsiders. They themselves must examine their own history, and that of the West, if they are to see how an accommodation might be reached. Common ground will be hard to find unless most Muslims can deplore, in their hearts, apologies of any kind, active or passive, for the killings of September 11th. On the other hand, if the fundamentalist view of the West gains ground, people in the West might conceivably be bombed into changing their minds—that is, into agreeing with Mr bin Laden that this is a war of civilisations that must be fought and won. A horrifying thought.

A horrifying thought, to be sure. Good commentary. Read it for yourself.

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

(expletive deleted)

CNN says: "Ninety offices of Planned Parenthood and at least 80 clinics of the National Abortion Federation across the United States have received envelopes containing unidentified powdery substances and letters with threatening language, according to spokesmen for the groups."

I pray this isn't of domestic origin, and continues to be a hoax. Either way, I hope they lock these bastards up and throw away the key. The only people as sick as the terrorists are the idiots who leverage terrorists' achievements.

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

Demand and Supply

A quick thought to stimulate debate: Over the past few years, Japan wasted $1.3 trillion in fiscal stimulus spending and remains mired in recession. Ireland cut income taxes to the lowest rates in the EU, and consistently generated the best growth in Europe.

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

Metapunditry

You have to love Glenn Reynold's addition to Stephen Moore's article on trust/distrust of government:

....it's odd to label people who want the government to focus on important things "anti-government." Would you label people who thought brain surgeons should focus on neurosurgery instead of, say, juggling or macrame, "anti-brain surgery"? And would you label people who thought that brain surgeons should have to spend a lot of their time juggling and doing macrame "pro-brain surgery"?

Just to extend the analogy to zero-sum reasoning, is a dollar for brain surgery necessarily a dollor not spent on macrame? Last time I checked, Macrame and juggling involved no small level of brain activity. It is a bright focus on the simple responsibilities of government that allows all our wonderful complexities to flourish. Limited government is a dynamic idea.

...(snort)...macrame!...(giggle). Glenn cracks me up.

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

A Free Pass from God?

What is it about certain religious fundamentalists that they feel they have special dispensation to sin? Or is it some Freudian binge-purge mechanism? Or is it like one of my high school classmates who suggested the wonderful thing about being catholic was that he could do whatever he wanted as long as he confessed at the end of the week?

Apparently the 9/11 highjackers spent a lot of time in strip bars, pricing prostitutes and gambling. Stephen Hayes examines the stripper-terrorist connection in this funny and somewhat bewildering article.

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

Blast from the past

Eric Zorn reminds us of the similarity between the current Anthrax scare and the Tylenol tampering of 1982:

Just 20 years ago, all that came between us and over-the-counter pain relief was a flip cap and a wad of cotton. Then, virtually overnight, a Chicago-area terrorist--or maybe a prankster, or maybe just a clever murderer, we still don't know--changed retail packaging forever.

Now, as Zorn points out, we rip through the tamper-proof seals without thinking about it. I expect he's right. In a few years, knowing the sending party and checking for a proper seal will be a routine part of the incoming mail process.

An article from the CDC points out that we have been here before with Anthrax threats, although a series of events in 1998 turned out to be a hoax. If your interested here is the CDC link on handling suspicious items.

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

Taliban Missile:

A friend of mine emailed me this photo, thus captioned, which takes a jab at the value the Taliban actually place on human life.

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

More French

Citing Matt Welch on Barbara Kingsolver reminded me of his article on everyone's favorite subject, the French. Welch makes it clear the sacrifices the French make to look down their noses at us, and points out a bit of "zero-sum logic on the way":

The strikes are part of it. My wife might have led a successful walkout, but her bosses openly encouraged her to go on strike. "It's the only way anything will get done," one said. The relationship between French management and labor is much like that between parents and their chronically whining children -- not only do the kids learn exactly what pitch of crying gets them what they want, mom and dad are trained to believe that the brats only really mean it when they yell.

During my month-long vacation in Europe, France was hit by a two-week nationwide railroad strike (for higher salaries and "guarantees against restructuring"), a week-long walkout by Paris museum workers (to protest the state not hiring more museum staff in the wake of the mandatory 35-hour-week law), a metropolitan transit strike in most cities outside Paris (to reduce retirement age from 60 to 55), and various other actions by midwives, emergency room doctors, labor-office workers, and so on. In one inspired case French farmers upset about the European Union's reaction to hoof-and-mouth disease expressed their displeasure by blocking access to Lyon's airport.... Naturally.

The French seem to believe, like many American Leftists do, that Capital and Labor are engaged in a zero-sum War, and that most pro-business, pro-economy measures are poorly disguised scams to screw workers. I once walked around the ramshackle port town of Marseilles for hours, winding my way through the crowds of unemployed men lurking in every public square, in a desperate search for a restaurant open on Sunday. When we found one, there wasn't any fresh fish, because the fishermen don't work weekends. "Did it ever occur to anyone that having all the businesses closed on weekends might contribute to the lack of jobs here?" I snapped at my Marseilles host. "That would force people to work overtime," he said, looking slightly alarmed at my logic. "Besides, it's important for families to have their Sundays free."

Unfortunately, zero-sum reasoning leads to 10% unemployment and a somewhat oppressive lack of professional choice.

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

I cannot eat zees!

The BBC reports that A U.N. official, Jean Ziegler, criticizes the U.S. food drops because, horrors, the food might end up in the Taliban's hands (what might they do with it? Rice is not traditionally a jihad weapon). Monsieur Ziegler goes on to say "If you do not separate very clearly military operations and humanitarian operations, you destroy totally the credibility of the humanitarian operations."

Call me simplistic, but NOT delivering humanitarian aid would also undermine its credibility, non? And doesn't humanitarian aid always, in some part, end up in the hands of the oppressors? A bit idealistic, perhaps?

Or is this a bureaucrat defending his turf? It's not legit if I don't do it? One of his arguments is that Afghans don't like peanut butter. Awwhh.

Fortunately, Ziegler is contradicted by one of his own colleagues:

But another UN official, Christiane Berthiaume of the World Food Programme, said the problem of Afghan hunger was so severe that any means of easing it must be welcomed. "Food at this time, from wherever it comes - it's food for hungry people."

Right.

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

Making reckless claims by attribution

Boy, I'm a blogging fool today. But I can't help it when I see stuff like this from Smartertimes:

An article in the business section of today's New York Times speculates on the source of anthrax attacks on NBC and on American Media. One source at Harvard University, Juliette Kayyem, is quoted suggesting that "right-wing groups in America" may be guilty of the attacks. The Times quotes Ms. Kayyem as noting that the press "has not been a particular target of Islamic fundamentalist groups or groups we associate with Sept. 11. It has been a target of right-wing groups in America."

Another Harvard University source, Jessica Eve Stern, tells the Times that "Right-wing extremists are obsessed with biological warfare." The Times says Ms. Stern "finds some logic in suspecting the media attacks may have a domestic origin."

Well, the evidence may eventually show that "right-wing extremists" were behind these attacks. But until it does, some more skepticism is in order in passing along such claims.

Well, we can't blame the right wing ourselves, so let's call some Clinton appointees to say it for us (Harvard, shmarvard)! I guess the right wing has gone from conservative to reactionary to radical to bio-terrorists. Maybe Rush Limbaugh went deaf testing plastic explosive. This is just irresponsible.

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

A reminder

Stuart Buck found this amazing story about a young boy whose village was taken over by the Taliban. A selection:

It took three days, passing through many Taliban checkpoints, to get to the capital, Kabul, his first time in the city.

There he found amazing scenes: turbaned Taliban police rounding up young men who were working in shops and marching them off to the mosque to pray, measuring the length of trousers women wear under their compulsory, shroud-like burkas, or chasing women seen walking alone in the streets and beating them with sticks or lengths of steel cable.

"It was funny to see how they measured the length of women's pants, especially those who didn't wear socks," he said. "But it was scary. It was very frightening to be alone."

This story is in the LA Times. Must be some sort of apology for running this ludicrous and factually disastrous editorial. Matt Welch already sliced it to shreds, so...what he said.

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

I'd rather glow than have Anthrax

Ultraviolet light and Radiation both sterilize, which would kill Anthrax. Irradiating objects leave no trace of radiation on them. You can irradiate food without side effects (other than a tomato with a shelf life of a year), although the public is too jittery to accept it. Perhaps this is a technology whose time has come.

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

If America Catches Anthrax, Europe....

Anthrax hysteria is spreading to the continent, although there are no confirmed cases. Stranger still, they seem to be suspicious of mail coming from...the U.S.:

Six suspicious envelopes have been found and tested in Belgium over the past few days, Le Soir reported. They too turned out to be safe. Postal workers at Rome's main airport have refused to handle letters and packages from the U.S., Corriere della Sera reported.

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

We tried that already

A headline in the Wall Street Journal this morning reads "Corporate Mailrooms are First Line of Defense Against Bioterrorism". Perhaps we should federalize the mailrooms. Wait, the Post Office.....

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

Does that make me meat, vegetable or seasoning?

Virginia Postrel posted this gustatory analogy while discussing flag-waving Angelenos:

America is less a melting pot than a stew, in which the ingredients exchange flavors but remain distinguishable. Or maybe it's a burrito, in which the ingredients are held together by unifying institutions and create a whole greater than the sum of the parts. (You can play this metaphor game all day.) In either case, an attack on the whole is an attack on the parts, and the parts—particularly those who've fled monocultures—know it.

Maybe it's a Jambalaya, or a Paella. If it's the latter, I'd like to be a Mussel. Either way you throw it together, it's delicious.

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

There must be a problem in here somewhere

The Times comes out in favor of greater centralization of administering the $850 million and growing relief funds, accusing non-centralized systems as being "porous".

This kind of elitist reflex for prophylactic centralization kills me. Its code for "give it to professional bureacrats and lawyers as opposed to volunteers". The more centralized and municipalized this effort becomes, the less will get into the hands of the victims, and the more politicized the organization will become. Imagine the hearings about the equitable settlement value of being bonked on the head by debris vs. losing your job because your firm was decimated vs. losing a family member, etc. The Times actually makes my argument with the following "on the one hand..oops, forgot the other hand" construction:

But there is much the private groups can do to improve coordination, and on this score, as David Barstow reported in The Times last week, the results have been uneven. On the plus side, the charities are becoming increasingly aware that the universe of victims is larger and more elusive than originally thought, embracing not only victims' relatives but people who lost their jobs and suffered in other ways. There is also a growing understanding that many of these problems will be around for a long time. As a result, charities with similar interests are seeking one another out to avoid duplication and plan for the future. A half-dozen groups interested in college scholarships for victims' children are talking to one another. Funds for families of firefighters and other rescuers are banding together, and similar clusters are forming to address other needs — mental health, orphans, and so on.

All this makes excellent sense. But it is still very much an informal, decentralized system that does not begin to cover all the charities and, for that reason alone, cannot provide guarantees against duplication or even fraud. Nor can it guarantee the equitable distribution of resources. Officials who organized relief efforts after the Oklahoma City bombing say that New York is inviting problems unless it creates a comprehensive registry of victims and charities and a centralized mechanism to coordinate the distribution of benefits.

Wait. The other shoe didn't drop. Where are the "uneven" results? And since when has centralization ever "guaranteed" equitable distribution of resources and protection against fraud and duplication. Exactly....NEVER! If anything, government centralization can just as often increase fraud and duplication. The Times' aged fear of decentralized, dynamic solutions is once again laid bare.

It looks to me like decentralization works. We adapt on our own. Kind of like a....market! No, perish the thought!