Tuesday, May 11, 2004
Ten Days long long ago.
I too would like to apologise for falling for the Democratizing Iraq illusion.
I once wrote here that I was not sure it was a bad idea to invade Iraq (although I did demonstrate along with 3000000 or so other people in Rome).
More importantly I was briefly swept away by enthusiasm when Iraqi's really were throwing rose petals at our troops. So I repost
Ten Days that Shook My World View
Today is April 17 2003.
My world view was shaken, in particular, last Thursday 9 April 2003 when Ba’ath power in Baghdad collapsed and the coalition armed forces entered Baghdad. Of course the symbolic moment was the tearing down of the statue of Saddam Hussein in the plaza near the Palestine hotel (where many foreign journalists are checked in). Many people compared that moment to the fall of the Berlin wall on 9 November 1989. To me it was strikingly different. 9 April in Baghdad was, in some ways, like the moment of crisis of a revolution say 14 July in Paris. As far as I can tell, mainly from websites, there was the explosion of joy, sense of liberation and sense of limitless possibilities. The 9th of April was not a revolution. It was a victory achieved by foreign invaders. To me this makes it very different. Those who love revolution and oppose all invasions on principal have a problem with an invasion which looks so much like a revolution. I think that 9th of April should shake their world view.
I am not a great enthusiast for revolutions and I am not a pacifist. I do not believe that undemocratic governments have any legitimate authority so I feel that Saddam Hussein, in effect, invaded and conquered his native Iraq. I don’t think that national boundaries are sacred. So my world view was not near the epicentre of the earthquake. Nonetheless it was shaken at least enough to make it’s windows rattle (right now I’m checking for structural damage).
I was not surprised to see video of Iraqi’s dancing in the street (see my the posting of (date)). You will notice that I said I would not be surprised to see Iraqis dancing in the streets of Basra but didn’t even make a non prediction about Baghdad. The people of Basra and southern Iraq generally made their desperate hatred of Saddam Hussein clear in 1991 and I didn’t think the ruthless repression of their uprising could have reconciled them and him. The Kurds of northern Iraq have been fighting the Ba’athists for decades. It was not clear to me what exactly Sunnis in central Iraq thought. I note that coalition generals very explicitly considered the contingency that their troops would not be welcome so I was not the only one. In any case, even though I didn’t say I wouldn’t be surprised if the people of Baghdad showered US troops with flowers, I wasn’t surprised.
Still I was disturbed to recall that I opposed the invasion of Iraq. Clearly the body which has authority to decide if Iraq should be invaded is the majority of the Iraqi people (well maybe a super majority of say three quarters should be required to authorise an invasion by referendum). Obviously, they could not express their will. I think their approval would make the invasion still ilegitimate according to existing international law but legitimate according to the moral law. I felt ashamed that, if it had been up to me, they would not have been celebrating. There is no doubt about that, by the way. I can almost imagine that I am president of the USA prime minister of England and Australia and the unanimous security council. Hey if I can imagine being president I can imagine being 17 other people too at the same time. I certainly would not have authorised and ordered the invasion. I just don’t have the guts to make such a decision no doubts about it.
If the Bush administration had presented its case better, I might have been convinced to agree that Iraq should be invaded, but passive acceptance of a decision is very different from making the decision. However I did not accept the proposed invasion and demonstrated against it.
For a while, I wondered if the ideological extremism, stubbornness and arrogance of the Bush administration was useful resoluteness. I even almost admired Wolfowitz (not Rumsfield, Cheney or Bush who are clearly cynical). I was suddenly attracted to the idea of abandoning all existing international law. I thought it might be a good idea to ignore the parts of the the UN charter (which I haven’t read) which recognise or establishes the sovereign authority of governments including unelected governments and declares that international boundaries must not be crossed in arms except in self defence or by invitation. I thought it might be a good idea to finally abandon the idea of a world order based on the balance of power. bury Metternich (who is so important that Word recognises his name as correctly spelled). Indeed I thought it might be good to tear up the treaty of Westphalia – no more eus reggio eus religio. War is never good, but with smart bombs we don’t have to accept the authority of princes to decide what is to be considered true in their realms. We now can spread the One True Faith of democracy in a new crusade a new Jihad.
That is, why doesn’t the USA declare that it will base its foreign policy on the view that governments derive their just powers from the suffrage of the governed, that the USA will no longer take into consideration the absurd claims of sovereign authority of unelected individuals or groups. That all countries must hold elections (counting dangling but not pregnant chads). That if any group with de facto power in a country (calling themselves a government or state or the finger of god or whatever) blocks such elections the US armed forces might be sent to impose and supervise the electoral process. That, in the unfortunate event that some undemocratic pseudo rulers resist the new democratic order, the president of the USA will pick the name of their country out of a hat and order the US armed forces to invade that country. That this is it, the game is over. No one is going to get away with pretending that they have sovereign authority without being elected.
I thought that maybe the 9th of April 2003 could be the turning point of history. The day when the USA, the first functioning democracy larger than a canton or city state, would decide to use it’s hyper power and amazing technology to abolish the pretence of non democratic government and sovereignty.
Well as you can see not only did I lose my grasp on my world view, I came close to losing my sanity.
For those who find the above paragraphs perhaps a bit frightening I would like to stress that I am letting my imagination run wild in a mix of memory and fantasy. My period as a neo-neo-conservative idealistic super hawk lasted only for seconds. I will never be in a position of power. If I were, I wouldn’t have the guts to start a war. Still it was a disturbing experience for me personally and this is my Blog.
Frankly keeping the focus on me, I attempt to name my feelings. I personally felt paradigm shift.
I also felt horror at the suffering caused by the war (for me symbolised by the case of Ali the 12 year old who lost both parents and both arms) and horror at the description of the regimes torture chambers. I felt guilt because I opposed the invasion and guilt because some of my fellow Americans made an (amazingly small) number of mistakes with powerful bombs and caused suffering which is immense except by the horrible standards of war (I hope no one finds out if the mistakes were made by pilots or by the workers who miss-assembled smart bombs). But I also felt the Euphoria sudden liberation. It is I think a symptom of revolution (a syndrome which is highly infectious)
As, I think, has been the case in all revolutions so far, the euphoria didn’t last. In the case of Iraq, the hangover arrived in no more than two days. Now I knew that many Iraqis expected looting in the period of power vacuum. I expected that there would be looting. I didn’t imagine that people would smash statues which had survived 5,000 years or that people would loot hospitals overwhelmed by people injured in the war and working without running water.
By now I am about back to where I was before the war. Again I think that people dancing in the street at the fall of a dictator is a sign of danger ahead. Like countries in the middle of a revolution Iraq is dancing on the edge of a cliff in a time of great promise and danger. Does my flinching at the danger of a revolution make me a conservative or even a reactionary ?
The point of the above paragraph (assuming it has one) is that I can argue that the last month in Iraq might lead to a disaster for Iraq. That the outcome might be even worse than Saddam Hussein’s repression I can argue that the invasion might be the road to hell paved with (in part) good intentions (maybe one cobble stone for every 10 of power lust and political calculation which is a better than average proportion for political decisions). I won’t bother, because everyone recognises the dangers facing Iraq, and especially because might is a mighty word, that is, it is always very easy to argue that something *might* happen so why bother.
The interesting point is that I could make exactly the same argument about an Iraqi revolution. That is, Iraq would face the same dangers if the ba’ath party had been overthrown by a spontaneous popular uprising. Deaths in such an uprising could easily be many more than those in the war. I certainly would not oppose such an uprising.
Going back to fantasy, imagine that the vast majority of Iraqis who hated the ba’ath regime simultaneously asked me, so Robert should we rise up and overthrow Saddam Hussein tomorrow ? This fantasy assumes that the key coordination problem that they all have to do it at once is solved. Would I, could I answer no ? I can think of an argument. I can think of the argument that a revolution would be bad, because although Saddam Hussein is evil, a revolution could easily lead to civil war which is much worse. I can’t imagine believing in it. Still, just such an argument had a major role in convincing me to oppose the invasion.
So why do I feel so differently about invasions welcomed by the vast majority of the people and uprisings accomplished by some of the people and welcomed by the vast majority ? It is not because I believe in undemocratic nation states. That is, I think it is often useful to pretend that they have legitimate authority but they sure don’t have it. The moral law is complicated, but I feel sure that it doesn’t have an appendix on political geography.
Why ? Well I don’t know and nobody cares.
Anyway the honeymoon is over. For me the earthquake is past. Writing this I realize that my world view has not experienced structural damage. I am still opposed to wars of aggression against undemocratic states. I have never for an instant taken seriously the Bush administrations presentation of their policy as pre-emptive attacks for self defence from a possible hypothetical conceivable future attack. For a few seconds, I thought that wars of aggression against dictatorship might be good.
The Bush administration certainly seems to have done what they could to help me disagree with them. It requires a kind of genius in reverse to accuse Syria of making chemical weapons while failing to find the tons of chemical and biological weapons that they claimed to know were in Iraq.
Many Iraqis have shown a very poor aptitude for constructive revolution.
I can even come up with a story for why a country might need a revolution not an invasion. I can argue that in a revolution, no matter how sudden, an indigenous leadership arises. Some people acquires charismatic authority. If, by some strange freak of chance, these people are reasonable, the revolution can end well. This does not happen if the old regime is overthrown by foreigners. Now I don’t really believe this argument, but at least I can convince myself that my world view might be coherent (might is a mighty word).
But what if the next president to use US power against a dictator is not like Bush, is more honest or a more skilful liar. What if, say, John Kennedy returned to lead the Jihad with the sword in one hand and the bill of rights in the other determined to impose the one true faith of liberal democracy on this fallen world. Would I sing again the ode to the west wind, cringing at the horrors of war, but sure that if winter comes spring can't be far behind ?
I too would like to apologise for falling for the Democratizing Iraq illusion.
I once wrote here that I was not sure it was a bad idea to invade Iraq (although I did demonstrate along with 3000000 or so other people in Rome).
More importantly I was briefly swept away by enthusiasm when Iraqi's really were throwing rose petals at our troops. So I repost
Ten Days that Shook My World View
Today is April 17 2003.
My world view was shaken, in particular, last Thursday 9 April 2003 when Ba’ath power in Baghdad collapsed and the coalition armed forces entered Baghdad. Of course the symbolic moment was the tearing down of the statue of Saddam Hussein in the plaza near the Palestine hotel (where many foreign journalists are checked in). Many people compared that moment to the fall of the Berlin wall on 9 November 1989. To me it was strikingly different. 9 April in Baghdad was, in some ways, like the moment of crisis of a revolution say 14 July in Paris. As far as I can tell, mainly from websites, there was the explosion of joy, sense of liberation and sense of limitless possibilities. The 9th of April was not a revolution. It was a victory achieved by foreign invaders. To me this makes it very different. Those who love revolution and oppose all invasions on principal have a problem with an invasion which looks so much like a revolution. I think that 9th of April should shake their world view.
I am not a great enthusiast for revolutions and I am not a pacifist. I do not believe that undemocratic governments have any legitimate authority so I feel that Saddam Hussein, in effect, invaded and conquered his native Iraq. I don’t think that national boundaries are sacred. So my world view was not near the epicentre of the earthquake. Nonetheless it was shaken at least enough to make it’s windows rattle (right now I’m checking for structural damage).
I was not surprised to see video of Iraqi’s dancing in the street (see my the posting of (date)). You will notice that I said I would not be surprised to see Iraqis dancing in the streets of Basra but didn’t even make a non prediction about Baghdad. The people of Basra and southern Iraq generally made their desperate hatred of Saddam Hussein clear in 1991 and I didn’t think the ruthless repression of their uprising could have reconciled them and him. The Kurds of northern Iraq have been fighting the Ba’athists for decades. It was not clear to me what exactly Sunnis in central Iraq thought. I note that coalition generals very explicitly considered the contingency that their troops would not be welcome so I was not the only one. In any case, even though I didn’t say I wouldn’t be surprised if the people of Baghdad showered US troops with flowers, I wasn’t surprised.
Still I was disturbed to recall that I opposed the invasion of Iraq. Clearly the body which has authority to decide if Iraq should be invaded is the majority of the Iraqi people (well maybe a super majority of say three quarters should be required to authorise an invasion by referendum). Obviously, they could not express their will. I think their approval would make the invasion still ilegitimate according to existing international law but legitimate according to the moral law. I felt ashamed that, if it had been up to me, they would not have been celebrating. There is no doubt about that, by the way. I can almost imagine that I am president of the USA prime minister of England and Australia and the unanimous security council. Hey if I can imagine being president I can imagine being 17 other people too at the same time. I certainly would not have authorised and ordered the invasion. I just don’t have the guts to make such a decision no doubts about it.
If the Bush administration had presented its case better, I might have been convinced to agree that Iraq should be invaded, but passive acceptance of a decision is very different from making the decision. However I did not accept the proposed invasion and demonstrated against it.
For a while, I wondered if the ideological extremism, stubbornness and arrogance of the Bush administration was useful resoluteness. I even almost admired Wolfowitz (not Rumsfield, Cheney or Bush who are clearly cynical). I was suddenly attracted to the idea of abandoning all existing international law. I thought it might be a good idea to ignore the parts of the the UN charter (which I haven’t read) which recognise or establishes the sovereign authority of governments including unelected governments and declares that international boundaries must not be crossed in arms except in self defence or by invitation. I thought it might be a good idea to finally abandon the idea of a world order based on the balance of power. bury Metternich (who is so important that Word recognises his name as correctly spelled). Indeed I thought it might be good to tear up the treaty of Westphalia – no more eus reggio eus religio. War is never good, but with smart bombs we don’t have to accept the authority of princes to decide what is to be considered true in their realms. We now can spread the One True Faith of democracy in a new crusade a new Jihad.
That is, why doesn’t the USA declare that it will base its foreign policy on the view that governments derive their just powers from the suffrage of the governed, that the USA will no longer take into consideration the absurd claims of sovereign authority of unelected individuals or groups. That all countries must hold elections (counting dangling but not pregnant chads). That if any group with de facto power in a country (calling themselves a government or state or the finger of god or whatever) blocks such elections the US armed forces might be sent to impose and supervise the electoral process. That, in the unfortunate event that some undemocratic pseudo rulers resist the new democratic order, the president of the USA will pick the name of their country out of a hat and order the US armed forces to invade that country. That this is it, the game is over. No one is going to get away with pretending that they have sovereign authority without being elected.
I thought that maybe the 9th of April 2003 could be the turning point of history. The day when the USA, the first functioning democracy larger than a canton or city state, would decide to use it’s hyper power and amazing technology to abolish the pretence of non democratic government and sovereignty.
Well as you can see not only did I lose my grasp on my world view, I came close to losing my sanity.
For those who find the above paragraphs perhaps a bit frightening I would like to stress that I am letting my imagination run wild in a mix of memory and fantasy. My period as a neo-neo-conservative idealistic super hawk lasted only for seconds. I will never be in a position of power. If I were, I wouldn’t have the guts to start a war. Still it was a disturbing experience for me personally and this is my Blog.
Frankly keeping the focus on me, I attempt to name my feelings. I personally felt paradigm shift.
I also felt horror at the suffering caused by the war (for me symbolised by the case of Ali the 12 year old who lost both parents and both arms) and horror at the description of the regimes torture chambers. I felt guilt because I opposed the invasion and guilt because some of my fellow Americans made an (amazingly small) number of mistakes with powerful bombs and caused suffering which is immense except by the horrible standards of war (I hope no one finds out if the mistakes were made by pilots or by the workers who miss-assembled smart bombs). But I also felt the Euphoria sudden liberation. It is I think a symptom of revolution (a syndrome which is highly infectious)
As, I think, has been the case in all revolutions so far, the euphoria didn’t last. In the case of Iraq, the hangover arrived in no more than two days. Now I knew that many Iraqis expected looting in the period of power vacuum. I expected that there would be looting. I didn’t imagine that people would smash statues which had survived 5,000 years or that people would loot hospitals overwhelmed by people injured in the war and working without running water.
By now I am about back to where I was before the war. Again I think that people dancing in the street at the fall of a dictator is a sign of danger ahead. Like countries in the middle of a revolution Iraq is dancing on the edge of a cliff in a time of great promise and danger. Does my flinching at the danger of a revolution make me a conservative or even a reactionary ?
The point of the above paragraph (assuming it has one) is that I can argue that the last month in Iraq might lead to a disaster for Iraq. That the outcome might be even worse than Saddam Hussein’s repression I can argue that the invasion might be the road to hell paved with (in part) good intentions (maybe one cobble stone for every 10 of power lust and political calculation which is a better than average proportion for political decisions). I won’t bother, because everyone recognises the dangers facing Iraq, and especially because might is a mighty word, that is, it is always very easy to argue that something *might* happen so why bother.
The interesting point is that I could make exactly the same argument about an Iraqi revolution. That is, Iraq would face the same dangers if the ba’ath party had been overthrown by a spontaneous popular uprising. Deaths in such an uprising could easily be many more than those in the war. I certainly would not oppose such an uprising.
Going back to fantasy, imagine that the vast majority of Iraqis who hated the ba’ath regime simultaneously asked me, so Robert should we rise up and overthrow Saddam Hussein tomorrow ? This fantasy assumes that the key coordination problem that they all have to do it at once is solved. Would I, could I answer no ? I can think of an argument. I can think of the argument that a revolution would be bad, because although Saddam Hussein is evil, a revolution could easily lead to civil war which is much worse. I can’t imagine believing in it. Still, just such an argument had a major role in convincing me to oppose the invasion.
So why do I feel so differently about invasions welcomed by the vast majority of the people and uprisings accomplished by some of the people and welcomed by the vast majority ? It is not because I believe in undemocratic nation states. That is, I think it is often useful to pretend that they have legitimate authority but they sure don’t have it. The moral law is complicated, but I feel sure that it doesn’t have an appendix on political geography.
Why ? Well I don’t know and nobody cares.
Anyway the honeymoon is over. For me the earthquake is past. Writing this I realize that my world view has not experienced structural damage. I am still opposed to wars of aggression against undemocratic states. I have never for an instant taken seriously the Bush administrations presentation of their policy as pre-emptive attacks for self defence from a possible hypothetical conceivable future attack. For a few seconds, I thought that wars of aggression against dictatorship might be good.
The Bush administration certainly seems to have done what they could to help me disagree with them. It requires a kind of genius in reverse to accuse Syria of making chemical weapons while failing to find the tons of chemical and biological weapons that they claimed to know were in Iraq.
Many Iraqis have shown a very poor aptitude for constructive revolution.
I can even come up with a story for why a country might need a revolution not an invasion. I can argue that in a revolution, no matter how sudden, an indigenous leadership arises. Some people acquires charismatic authority. If, by some strange freak of chance, these people are reasonable, the revolution can end well. This does not happen if the old regime is overthrown by foreigners. Now I don’t really believe this argument, but at least I can convince myself that my world view might be coherent (might is a mighty word).
But what if the next president to use US power against a dictator is not like Bush, is more honest or a more skilful liar. What if, say, John Kennedy returned to lead the Jihad with the sword in one hand and the bill of rights in the other determined to impose the one true faith of liberal democracy on this fallen world. Would I sing again the ode to the west wind, cringing at the horrors of war, but sure that if winter comes spring can't be far behind ?
The return of the Gallup anomaly
In 2000 Gallup polls of likely voters were significantly more favorable to Bush than the average poll. I was convinced that this had something to do with their likely voter filter. I was (really honestly) planning to post on this to reasure Dems dismayed by the Gallup poll in April which showed Bush 5 points ahead.
Now there is proof and Atrios (of course) found it first.
"And, Schneider let slip that Kerry's ahead by 6 points among registered voters - it's only using their likely voter formula that Bush is up 48-47."
Bush-Kerry increases 7% with the likely voter filter which reduces sample size by less than 50% ! How the hell does it work ? Gallup can't decide that registered voters are more likely to vote if they say they support the Republican.
They wouldn't dare use race would they ?
In 2000 Gallup polls of likely voters were significantly more favorable to Bush than the average poll. I was convinced that this had something to do with their likely voter filter. I was (really honestly) planning to post on this to reasure Dems dismayed by the Gallup poll in April which showed Bush 5 points ahead.
Now there is proof and Atrios (of course) found it first.
"And, Schneider let slip that Kerry's ahead by 6 points among registered voters - it's only using their likely voter formula that Bush is up 48-47."
Bush-Kerry increases 7% with the likely voter filter which reduces sample size by less than 50% ! How the hell does it work ? Gallup can't decide that registered voters are more likely to vote if they say they support the Republican.
They wouldn't dare use race would they ?
Oh No
Reuters (via Mark Kleiman)
"According to allegations collected by the ICRC, ill-treatment during interrogation was not systematic, except with regard to persons arrested in connection with suspected security offences or deemed to have an 'intelligence' value.'"
[snip]
"In the case of 'High Value Detainees' held in Baghdad International Airport,"
Does this mean that abuse at Abu Ghraib was mild compared to the abuse of "'High Value Detainees' held in Baghdad International Airport" ?
It certainly means that the victims of abuse in the photographs which we have all seen were not leading terrorists or insurgents and were not the prisoners who were thought to know the most important secrets, since such "high value" prisoners were held at the airport and not at Abu Ghraib.
Reuters (via Mark Kleiman)
"According to allegations collected by the ICRC, ill-treatment during interrogation was not systematic, except with regard to persons arrested in connection with suspected security offences or deemed to have an 'intelligence' value.'"
[snip]
"In the case of 'High Value Detainees' held in Baghdad International Airport,"
Does this mean that abuse at Abu Ghraib was mild compared to the abuse of "'High Value Detainees' held in Baghdad International Airport" ?
It certainly means that the victims of abuse in the photographs which we have all seen were not leading terrorists or insurgents and were not the prisoners who were thought to know the most important secrets, since such "high value" prisoners were held at the airport and not at Abu Ghraib.
Monday, May 10, 2004
The saving grace of ideologues is that they (we ?) are so rigid that we drive other people away. It is particularly unwise to reject someone who is coming around by demanding that he eat all of his words in one sitting. So there are some comments about Andrew Sullivan's thoughts on Abu Ghraib which should not be made in public.
Fortunately so few people read this blog that I don't have to consider it public.
Basically Sullivan is saying he was fundamentally wrong about Bush and therefore may have been wrong about the wisdom of sending Bush's team into Iraq. Roughly he is conceding that Jacques Chirac may have been right all along. Nonetheless, he still insists that Chirac must have been a fool or a knave to disagree with Bush. He writes "It is Osama's dream propaganda coup. It is Chirac's fantasy of vindication. It is Tony Blair's nightmare. " linking Chirac with Osama Bin Laden and contrasting him with Blair. To Sullivan, even if Chirac might have been right, he couldn't possibly have been an ally who was sincerely warning us that he thought we were making a mistake.
Also, like many conservatives, Sullivan argues that the Bush team has made error after error, that we as citizens have to decide what we can do to get a more effective strategy and, finally, that we should avoid partisanship, that is, ordinary citizens should avoid influencing the policy the only way they can, by voting.
I can't remember hearing that argument before this year. I would never have dreamed of it. Sullivan (and others) are saying that we should avoid finger pointing and blame assigning when deciding whether to re-elect an incompetent president.
I would be much harsher with Sullivan if I weren't fairly sure that he is going to vote for Kerry (he is naturalised isn't he?).
Fortunately so few people read this blog that I don't have to consider it public.
Basically Sullivan is saying he was fundamentally wrong about Bush and therefore may have been wrong about the wisdom of sending Bush's team into Iraq. Roughly he is conceding that Jacques Chirac may have been right all along. Nonetheless, he still insists that Chirac must have been a fool or a knave to disagree with Bush. He writes "It is Osama's dream propaganda coup. It is Chirac's fantasy of vindication. It is Tony Blair's nightmare. " linking Chirac with Osama Bin Laden and contrasting him with Blair. To Sullivan, even if Chirac might have been right, he couldn't possibly have been an ally who was sincerely warning us that he thought we were making a mistake.
Also, like many conservatives, Sullivan argues that the Bush team has made error after error, that we as citizens have to decide what we can do to get a more effective strategy and, finally, that we should avoid partisanship, that is, ordinary citizens should avoid influencing the policy the only way they can, by voting.
I can't remember hearing that argument before this year. I would never have dreamed of it. Sullivan (and others) are saying that we should avoid finger pointing and blame assigning when deciding whether to re-elect an incompetent president.
I would be much harsher with Sullivan if I weren't fairly sure that he is going to vote for Kerry (he is naturalised isn't he?).
Shorter "Conservatives Restive About Bush Policies" by Dana Milbank and Jonathan Weisman
Conservatives agree Paul Krugman was right.
In the plece of Paul Krugman you could put the liberal blogger of your choice.
Now Milbank is no Bush fan, but the weird thing about this article is how few (quoted) conservatives are willing to claim that Bush has not been right wing enough. One exception is "Michael Franc, vice president of the Heritage Foundation, ... "" Conservative intellectuals "are saying, 'Don't do things half way,' " he said."
However, he seems to be the only conservativ saying any such thing.
The views of other conservatives (parahrased by Milbank and Weisman) echo the left blogosphere echo chamber
"ideas are hatched in the White House, for political or ideological reasons, then are thrust on the bureaucracy, "not for analysis, but for sale," Bartlett said."
"In Iraq, you don't see the thinking, 'Things have not happened as we had planned. What do we do now?' " said David Boaz, executive vice president of the libertarian Cato Institute"
"Richard W. Rahn, ... in a Washington Times column April 30 along similar lines. "From the beginning of the Bush administration, sympathetic, experienced economists have warned its officials about the need to avoid some obvious mistakes," he wrote. "Unfortunately, these warnings have gone unheeded." "
"David Frum said Rove is "the top hack and the top wonk" in the White House.""
Frum is an exception as he doesn't consider this a problem. Evidently he has confidence in Rove's deep understanding of economics, military strategy, diplomacy and Iraq.
The thesis that Bush administration policy is based on ideology and short term political advantage and not on messy facts or tedious analysis is, to say the least, not stunningly original.
I don't suppose we can hope to hear conservatives to admit that they are admitting that liberals were right all along. However we can watch them squirm.
Conservatives agree Paul Krugman was right.
In the plece of Paul Krugman you could put the liberal blogger of your choice.
Now Milbank is no Bush fan, but the weird thing about this article is how few (quoted) conservatives are willing to claim that Bush has not been right wing enough. One exception is "Michael Franc, vice president of the Heritage Foundation, ... "" Conservative intellectuals "are saying, 'Don't do things half way,' " he said."
However, he seems to be the only conservativ saying any such thing.
The views of other conservatives (parahrased by Milbank and Weisman) echo the left blogosphere echo chamber
"ideas are hatched in the White House, for political or ideological reasons, then are thrust on the bureaucracy, "not for analysis, but for sale," Bartlett said."
"In Iraq, you don't see the thinking, 'Things have not happened as we had planned. What do we do now?' " said David Boaz, executive vice president of the libertarian Cato Institute"
"Richard W. Rahn, ... in a Washington Times column April 30 along similar lines. "From the beginning of the Bush administration, sympathetic, experienced economists have warned its officials about the need to avoid some obvious mistakes," he wrote. "Unfortunately, these warnings have gone unheeded." "
"David Frum said Rove is "the top hack and the top wonk" in the White House.""
Frum is an exception as he doesn't consider this a problem. Evidently he has confidence in Rove's deep understanding of economics, military strategy, diplomacy and Iraq.
The thesis that Bush administration policy is based on ideology and short term political advantage and not on messy facts or tedious analysis is, to say the least, not stunningly original.
I don't suppose we can hope to hear conservatives to admit that they are admitting that liberals were right all along. However we can watch them squirm.
I am the worlds leading expert not only on Gulbudin Hekmatyar (the less famous brother of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar) but also on Mogtada al Sadr (the fun loving playboy brother of Moqtada al Sadr).
The weird thing is that, today, my inability to type got me a hit. Someone came here after googling Mogtada al Sadr,picture.
Even weirder, google suggests that we look for Mortada al Sadr. Who is that ?
By the way, the two hours with no blogger access were bad enough, but now it is changed. Maybe it's improved, but I hate change.
Ironically I just now changed my blog template to make my TTLB ecosystem rating (currently slimy mollusc) visible. I thank Michael Froomkin for the heads up.
The weird thing is that, today, my inability to type got me a hit. Someone came here after googling Mogtada al Sadr,picture.
Even weirder, google suggests that we look for Mortada al Sadr. Who is that ?
By the way, the two hours with no blogger access were bad enough, but now it is changed. Maybe it's improved, but I hate change.
Ironically I just now changed my blog template to make my TTLB ecosystem rating (currently slimy mollusc) visible. I thank Michael Froomkin for the heads up.
Thursday, May 06, 2004
Bad Typing
T. Friedman, G Will and the Washington Post editorial board are denouncing the Bush administration for indifferance to human rights. Even Bush himself has publicly scolded Rumsfeld. The trigger, sad to say, is not abuse but the fact that the photos of the abuse got on TV. Kevin Drum notes that the left blogosphere was similarly unalert when the abuse was briefly mentioned in mere words in January (I remember the news and remember that I posted nothing about it). Still it seems that hard nosed hard line hawks understand that trying to win a war of ideas by ignoring the rules of war is worse than a crime, it is a mistake.
I have noticed one lonely voice sticking to the Chalabite line. Jim Hoagland remains loyal to the Pentagon and Chalabi arguing that we must not waver in fighting our true enemies at the UN, the State Department and the CIA.
"Jassim Mohammed Saleh, ... The appointment,.... It is hard to think of a gesture that could more effectively undermine the moral claims the Bush administration made in justifying regime change in Iraq -- especially as it came when legitimate outrage and revulsion was spreading globally over evidence of abuse of Iraqi prisoners."
OK Jim let me help you out. You find it "hard to think of a gesture that could more effectively undermine the moral claims the Bush administration made" . How about looking a littlle further on in your own sentence. One might argue that appointing Saleh was a worse offence against human rights that the abuse of Iraqi prisoners, but honesty should have compelled Mr Hoagland to admit that the gestures of Pvt England were more effective at undermining Bush's claims that the appointment of Saleh.
Even a dishonest person with a brain wouldn't state an argument then prove it nonsense in the same sentence. In particular why did Hoagland use the word "gesture" not the phrase "policy move" or something which could not refer to the abuse ? You know a gesture is something like "thumbs up". It can be used to refer to any action with a symbolic aspect, that is, any action, including appointing general Saleh, but if you are trying to talk about something other than the gestures everyone else is talking about, it is better to use another word.
I think Hoagland (who I once respected) is not only typing up dictation from Feith or Wolfowitz or Chalabi himself, but he is mixing up the words. I certainly hope that all of those gentlemen will be looking for a new job soon. Why doesn't the Post eliminate the middleman by firing Hoagland and hiring one of them directly ?
T. Friedman, G Will and the Washington Post editorial board are denouncing the Bush administration for indifferance to human rights. Even Bush himself has publicly scolded Rumsfeld. The trigger, sad to say, is not abuse but the fact that the photos of the abuse got on TV. Kevin Drum notes that the left blogosphere was similarly unalert when the abuse was briefly mentioned in mere words in January (I remember the news and remember that I posted nothing about it). Still it seems that hard nosed hard line hawks understand that trying to win a war of ideas by ignoring the rules of war is worse than a crime, it is a mistake.
I have noticed one lonely voice sticking to the Chalabite line. Jim Hoagland remains loyal to the Pentagon and Chalabi arguing that we must not waver in fighting our true enemies at the UN, the State Department and the CIA.
"Jassim Mohammed Saleh, ... The appointment,.... It is hard to think of a gesture that could more effectively undermine the moral claims the Bush administration made in justifying regime change in Iraq -- especially as it came when legitimate outrage and revulsion was spreading globally over evidence of abuse of Iraqi prisoners."
OK Jim let me help you out. You find it "hard to think of a gesture that could more effectively undermine the moral claims the Bush administration made" . How about looking a littlle further on in your own sentence. One might argue that appointing Saleh was a worse offence against human rights that the abuse of Iraqi prisoners, but honesty should have compelled Mr Hoagland to admit that the gestures of Pvt England were more effective at undermining Bush's claims that the appointment of Saleh.
Even a dishonest person with a brain wouldn't state an argument then prove it nonsense in the same sentence. In particular why did Hoagland use the word "gesture" not the phrase "policy move" or something which could not refer to the abuse ? You know a gesture is something like "thumbs up". It can be used to refer to any action with a symbolic aspect, that is, any action, including appointing general Saleh, but if you are trying to talk about something other than the gestures everyone else is talking about, it is better to use another word.
I think Hoagland (who I once respected) is not only typing up dictation from Feith or Wolfowitz or Chalabi himself, but he is mixing up the words. I certainly hope that all of those gentlemen will be looking for a new job soon. Why doesn't the Post eliminate the middleman by firing Hoagland and hiring one of them directly ?
One step over the party line.
When Maureen Dowd is angry enough to be semi serious she is very very good.
However what struck me most in her op ed is a quote of "Colin Powell's chief of staff, Larry Wilkerson, tells GQ magazine that Wolfie is "a utopian" like Lenin: "You're never going to bring utopia, and you're going to hurt a lot of people in the process of trying to do it.""
Remember when the Bush administration was famously disciplined and "on message". Now the chief of staff of the secretary of defence is so far from willing to follow the party line that he is comparing Wolfowitz to Lenin. What ever happened to [Republican] democratic centralism.
When Maureen Dowd is angry enough to be semi serious she is very very good.
However what struck me most in her op ed is a quote of "Colin Powell's chief of staff, Larry Wilkerson, tells GQ magazine that Wolfie is "a utopian" like Lenin: "You're never going to bring utopia, and you're going to hurt a lot of people in the process of trying to do it.""
Remember when the Bush administration was famously disciplined and "on message". Now the chief of staff of the secretary of defence is so far from willing to follow the party line that he is comparing Wolfowitz to Lenin. What ever happened to [Republican] democratic centralism.
Wednesday, May 05, 2004
I am blogging with one hand behind my back (not tied I can't manage that alone).
The reason is that even defenders of civil liberties are willing to concede (via billmon) "as the Israeli Supreme Court wrote in its decision striking down legalized torture: Although a democracy must often fight with one hand tied behind its back"". I am really interested in Matt Yglesias' very insightful post about Padilla.
One of his points is that the cost of not allowing Bush to lock up anyone hewants indefinitely is small "Broadening the number of independent actors who would need to agree to this sort of detention would greatly mitigate that danger, without substantially increasing the risks of terrorism." Indeed it is not fighting terrorism with one hand tied behind ones back. It is more like fighting terrorism with ones left pinky tied to ones left ring finger.
Yglesias' main point is that it is possible to be both a civil libertarian and a utilitarian (see Mill John Stuart). The real absolutists are those who are unwilling to accept any limits on the forces of order.
However, i also think that Mr Yglesias is still suffering fom the demonisation of utilitarians in Emerson hall. Matt your not doing philosophy anymore. It is time to make a cynical pragmatic alliance with the people who think rights are trumps in order to achieve the useful aim of living in a free society that does not make enemies of the people we set out to help.
The reason is that even defenders of civil liberties are willing to concede (via billmon) "as the Israeli Supreme Court wrote in its decision striking down legalized torture: Although a democracy must often fight with one hand tied behind its back"". I am really interested in Matt Yglesias' very insightful post about Padilla.
One of his points is that the cost of not allowing Bush to lock up anyone hewants indefinitely is small "Broadening the number of independent actors who would need to agree to this sort of detention would greatly mitigate that danger, without substantially increasing the risks of terrorism." Indeed it is not fighting terrorism with one hand tied behind ones back. It is more like fighting terrorism with ones left pinky tied to ones left ring finger.
Yglesias' main point is that it is possible to be both a civil libertarian and a utilitarian (see Mill John Stuart). The real absolutists are those who are unwilling to accept any limits on the forces of order.
However, i also think that Mr Yglesias is still suffering fom the demonisation of utilitarians in Emerson hall. Matt your not doing philosophy anymore. It is time to make a cynical pragmatic alliance with the people who think rights are trumps in order to achieve the useful aim of living in a free society that does not make enemies of the people we set out to help.
Amazingly Ikiesling links to a year old post here.
Had to reciprocate.
My post wasn't really about Sen's paradox, but Ikiesling also links to Brad Delong's thoughts on Sen's paradox.
" Sen considered what [Vilfredo] Pareto might say of a world in which lived two agents, Lewd and Prude. Lewd wants to read porn, but finds the thought of Prude being forced to read Lady Chatterley's Lover even more exciting. Prude finds Lady Chatterley's Lover appalling, but is even more disturbed by the thought of Lewd reading it and enjoying it.
Freedom [Sen says] is not Pareto optimal in this case. [Freedom leads to Lewd reading Lady Chatterley's Lover and Prude not reading it. But it] is Pareto better[, that is, everyone is happier in a utilitarian sense,] to block Lewd from reading LCL and to force Prude to read it.
This is crazy. And, in any case, it shows that Liberalism and the [utilitarian] Pareto principal might hypothetically be in conflict.
It's at this point that my brain goes, "Booiiinnnggg!" The Liberal--libertarian--outcome is not for Lewd to eagerly read Lady Chatterley's Lover and for Prude to stand angrily by. The Liberal outcome is for Lewd to say, "I'll pay you $100 if you read this book," for Prude to accept (there is a bargain here that both would agree to at some price), and for Prude to then say "I'll pay you $150 if you don't read this book"..."
That is, Brad Delong asks why Sen's paradox is not resolved by side payments.
Sen's example is hypothetical and side payments are ruled out by hypothesis.
To consider side payments, I would imagine a whole lot of lewds and prudes. To the prudes, eliminating porn is a public good. To the lewds having prudes exposed is a public good. Prude1 wants prude2 prude3 etc to pay lewd1, lewd2 etc to not view porn, but would rather keep the cash himself.
I think that the coercive powers of the state are often needed to achieve Pareto efficiency when there are public goods. As far as I can tell, Sen's example for a large mixed population of prudes and lewds is one such case. That is, I think, the tension between liberalism and the Pareto principal remains if the implausible ban on side payments is replaced with the assumption of a large population.
Had to reciprocate.
My post wasn't really about Sen's paradox, but Ikiesling also links to Brad Delong's thoughts on Sen's paradox.
" Sen considered what [Vilfredo] Pareto might say of a world in which lived two agents, Lewd and Prude. Lewd wants to read porn, but finds the thought of Prude being forced to read Lady Chatterley's Lover even more exciting. Prude finds Lady Chatterley's Lover appalling, but is even more disturbed by the thought of Lewd reading it and enjoying it.
Freedom [Sen says] is not Pareto optimal in this case. [Freedom leads to Lewd reading Lady Chatterley's Lover and Prude not reading it. But it] is Pareto better[, that is, everyone is happier in a utilitarian sense,] to block Lewd from reading LCL and to force Prude to read it.
This is crazy. And, in any case, it shows that Liberalism and the [utilitarian] Pareto principal might hypothetically be in conflict.
It's at this point that my brain goes, "Booiiinnnggg!" The Liberal--libertarian--outcome is not for Lewd to eagerly read Lady Chatterley's Lover and for Prude to stand angrily by. The Liberal outcome is for Lewd to say, "I'll pay you $100 if you read this book," for Prude to accept (there is a bargain here that both would agree to at some price), and for Prude to then say "I'll pay you $150 if you don't read this book"..."
That is, Brad Delong asks why Sen's paradox is not resolved by side payments.
Sen's example is hypothetical and side payments are ruled out by hypothesis.
To consider side payments, I would imagine a whole lot of lewds and prudes. To the prudes, eliminating porn is a public good. To the lewds having prudes exposed is a public good. Prude1 wants prude2 prude3 etc to pay lewd1, lewd2 etc to not view porn, but would rather keep the cash himself.
I think that the coercive powers of the state are often needed to achieve Pareto efficiency when there are public goods. As far as I can tell, Sen's example for a large mixed population of prudes and lewds is one such case. That is, I think, the tension between liberalism and the Pareto principal remains if the implausible ban on side payments is replaced with the assumption of a large population.
Tuesday, May 04, 2004
What Mark Kleiman said.
Basically he says "suggestion below that training for jobs whose holders may feel justified, or sometimes be justified, in deliberately inflicting pain on others -- police and prison guards, for example -- ought to include a Milgram-like scenario." A Milgram like scenario is to order them to violate someone's rights with torture (fake electric shocks). No true shocks used.
Kleiman notes a problem "Yes, after a while there would be some leakage of information back to the recruits, which would diminish the value of the drill." I think this means that the test of refusal to follow criminal orders must be a test. That is, in the drill, the orders are not always the same and they are not obviously criminal. For example, in a more recent version of the Milgram experiment, ordinary people use a (fake) stun gun to stop someone who someone from escaping after someone else in a uniform told them to. This would be criminal if not all staged, but it is not as obvious as the original experiment.
I also think the drill should be a test in the sense that trainees must pass the test to get the job.
One other thing is that, in this post, saying such a drill is bad because it is psychologically traumatic is like saying Socrates had it coming. I think there is something to that view. I mean no hemlock or anything but I think some aspects of our psyches and our conciences don't bear inspection.
In the post with the original proposal, Kleiman praises a taboo -- the taboo on torture. He argues (and I agree again) that this taboo is useful as a taboo, that is, that it should not be subject to rational criticism.
Think is there no situation in which you would consider torture acceptable ?
Think of someone who has hidden an H bomb with a timer which can be switched off in Mexico City or Sao Paolo (biggest city in the world anyway) and you are with this guy but have no sodium pentathol on hand or obtainable within the time left before the bomb blows up. With torture you can get him to tell you where the bomb is. Do you have a right to keep your soul clean and let tens of millions die ?
I think it was wrong for me to write that argument. I did it because almost no one reads this blog, but I think it is better to not think about such things. Our horror at torture should not be subject to rational scrutiny because, at best, taboos which have been scrutinized lose some emotional power. The taboo against torture is precious and, as we have recently seen for the nth time, too weak.
I note the intellectual tension in Kleiman the paladin of self knowledge who values a taboo.
Back to the H bomb. I think it might be morally obligatory to use criminal means sometimes. I also think such moral crimes should be punished. It might seem cruel to punish someone who did what had to be done even though it was criminal. However it is a way to make the slippery slope much less slippery. The suffering of someone punished for a necessary crime is, like the suffering of the victim of that crime, a bad means necessary to a good end. I personally think that the suffering of someone punished for a selfish malicious crime is similarly a bad means to a good end.
But please don't think about such things.
update: very bad typo corrected. An earlier version had " I don't think such crimes should ever be forbidden" when I meant "I don't think such crimes should be pardoned," which, as typos go is about as bad as it gets.
Basically he says "suggestion below that training for jobs whose holders may feel justified, or sometimes be justified, in deliberately inflicting pain on others -- police and prison guards, for example -- ought to include a Milgram-like scenario." A Milgram like scenario is to order them to violate someone's rights with torture (fake electric shocks). No true shocks used.
Kleiman notes a problem "Yes, after a while there would be some leakage of information back to the recruits, which would diminish the value of the drill." I think this means that the test of refusal to follow criminal orders must be a test. That is, in the drill, the orders are not always the same and they are not obviously criminal. For example, in a more recent version of the Milgram experiment, ordinary people use a (fake) stun gun to stop someone who someone from escaping after someone else in a uniform told them to. This would be criminal if not all staged, but it is not as obvious as the original experiment.
I also think the drill should be a test in the sense that trainees must pass the test to get the job.
One other thing is that, in this post, saying such a drill is bad because it is psychologically traumatic is like saying Socrates had it coming. I think there is something to that view. I mean no hemlock or anything but I think some aspects of our psyches and our conciences don't bear inspection.
In the post with the original proposal, Kleiman praises a taboo -- the taboo on torture. He argues (and I agree again) that this taboo is useful as a taboo, that is, that it should not be subject to rational criticism.
Think is there no situation in which you would consider torture acceptable ?
Think of someone who has hidden an H bomb with a timer which can be switched off in Mexico City or Sao Paolo (biggest city in the world anyway) and you are with this guy but have no sodium pentathol on hand or obtainable within the time left before the bomb blows up. With torture you can get him to tell you where the bomb is. Do you have a right to keep your soul clean and let tens of millions die ?
I think it was wrong for me to write that argument. I did it because almost no one reads this blog, but I think it is better to not think about such things. Our horror at torture should not be subject to rational scrutiny because, at best, taboos which have been scrutinized lose some emotional power. The taboo against torture is precious and, as we have recently seen for the nth time, too weak.
I note the intellectual tension in Kleiman the paladin of self knowledge who values a taboo.
Back to the H bomb. I think it might be morally obligatory to use criminal means sometimes. I also think such moral crimes should be punished. It might seem cruel to punish someone who did what had to be done even though it was criminal. However it is a way to make the slippery slope much less slippery. The suffering of someone punished for a necessary crime is, like the suffering of the victim of that crime, a bad means necessary to a good end. I personally think that the suffering of someone punished for a selfish malicious crime is similarly a bad means to a good end.
But please don't think about such things.
update: very bad typo corrected. An earlier version had " I don't think such crimes should ever be forbidden" when I meant "I don't think such crimes should be pardoned," which, as typos go is about as bad as it gets.
Monday, May 03, 2004
Freud may have had a point there
I am anything but an enthusiast for Freud but I must admit that there seems to be a Freudian slip in the Washington Post online article about US techniques for interrogating Iraqis.
"Interviews with former Iraqi prisoners and human-rights advocates present a picture of the U.S. prison system here as a vast wartime effort to extract information from the enemy rather than to punish criminals. Former prisoners say lengthy interrogation sessions, employing sleep depravation,..."
Of course the use of the word depravation might not be a slip at all. It might be a choice made by the person who posts the stories on the web.
In fact, just to show how little I am a fan of Freud, I note that one of the examples of Freudian slips noted in his "introductory lectures on psychoanalisis" came from a newspaper. From evidence that there is more than one will and intention at work behind the text of a newspaper, he inferred that there is more than one will and intention at work inside each single person.
I wonder why so many people have had such feith in his judgement.
I am anything but an enthusiast for Freud but I must admit that there seems to be a Freudian slip in the Washington Post online article about US techniques for interrogating Iraqis.
"Interviews with former Iraqi prisoners and human-rights advocates present a picture of the U.S. prison system here as a vast wartime effort to extract information from the enemy rather than to punish criminals. Former prisoners say lengthy interrogation sessions, employing sleep depravation,..."
Of course the use of the word depravation might not be a slip at all. It might be a choice made by the person who posts the stories on the web.
In fact, just to show how little I am a fan of Freud, I note that one of the examples of Freudian slips noted in his "introductory lectures on psychoanalisis" came from a newspaper. From evidence that there is more than one will and intention at work behind the text of a newspaper, he inferred that there is more than one will and intention at work inside each single person.
I wonder why so many people have had such feith in his judgement.
Saturday, May 01, 2004
Dio Denaro C'e'
I never expected to find myself linking to FreeRepublic and especially not for a translation of an article al Mada, a paper owned by Fakhri Kareem a former member of the Politburo of the Iraqi Communist Party. I mean I have nothing against the Iraqi communist party, but did you ever expect to link to al Mada ? And what do you make of Freepers eagerly translating communists ?
In the USA the only people interested in the list seem to be the UN bashing right. The idea appears to be that the Oil for Food program was supervised by the UN so if Saddam was bribing politicians and journalists it is their fault. One might as well say that it was a cost of the sanctions regime and the fault is shared by Bush I, Clinton and Bush II.
I can see why responsible journalists don't want to touch this one witha 20 foot pole, but where are the bloggers ?
The list is irresistable.
Like the al Mada correspondent I wondered if "President Sukarno's daughter" is the current president Megawati Sukarnoputri, daughter of the late former president Sukarno, or is president Megawati Sukarnoputri's daughter (if she has one). I too found the "Megawati" 3 names further down pretty clear evidence that the democratically elected president of the world's largest Moslem country took a bribe from Saddam.
I was delighted to find the name of the well known arabofilic islamofile Charles Pasqua on the list ahhh Frankly I never hoped to live to see the day in which I could seriously and honestly type "former Iraqi communist politiburo member and FreeRepublic.com accuse Pasqua of taking a bribe from Saddam Hussein"
The name which fascinates me most is
Roberto Frimigoni an Italian who got vouchers 1 million. barrles worth on the order of roughtly 300,000 dollars or Euros (that's how rough the guess is). I am fairly certain that is a typo and that the entry refers to Roberto Formigoni, the president of Lombardy. Roberto Formigoni is the founder of "comunione e libert?" an ultra catholic political youth movement. He is the most outspokenly catholic politician in Italy as well as a former political ally of Bettino Craxi the late presumably atheist Kleptosocialist former prime minister and a current ally of Silvio Berlusconi.
He was also the Italian opponent of desert storm most often seen on TV during desert storm. This made sense, since the Pope was opposed to desert storm. A slightly similar name in FreeRepublic.com's translation of an unconfirmed story in a commie rag is plenty but I mean plenty for me to accuse Mr Formigoni.
He will sue me (in my dreams)
I never expected to find myself linking to FreeRepublic and especially not for a translation of an article al Mada, a paper owned by Fakhri Kareem a former member of the Politburo of the Iraqi Communist Party. I mean I have nothing against the Iraqi communist party, but did you ever expect to link to al Mada ? And what do you make of Freepers eagerly translating communists ?
In the USA the only people interested in the list seem to be the UN bashing right. The idea appears to be that the Oil for Food program was supervised by the UN so if Saddam was bribing politicians and journalists it is their fault. One might as well say that it was a cost of the sanctions regime and the fault is shared by Bush I, Clinton and Bush II.
I can see why responsible journalists don't want to touch this one witha 20 foot pole, but where are the bloggers ?
The list is irresistable.
Like the al Mada correspondent I wondered if "President Sukarno's daughter" is the current president Megawati Sukarnoputri, daughter of the late former president Sukarno, or is president Megawati Sukarnoputri's daughter (if she has one). I too found the "Megawati" 3 names further down pretty clear evidence that the democratically elected president of the world's largest Moslem country took a bribe from Saddam.
I was delighted to find the name of the well known arabofilic islamofile Charles Pasqua on the list ahhh Frankly I never hoped to live to see the day in which I could seriously and honestly type "former Iraqi communist politiburo member and FreeRepublic.com accuse Pasqua of taking a bribe from Saddam Hussein"
The name which fascinates me most is
Roberto Frimigoni an Italian who got vouchers 1 million. barrles worth on the order of roughtly 300,000 dollars or Euros (that's how rough the guess is). I am fairly certain that is a typo and that the entry refers to Roberto Formigoni, the president of Lombardy. Roberto Formigoni is the founder of "comunione e libert?" an ultra catholic political youth movement. He is the most outspokenly catholic politician in Italy as well as a former political ally of Bettino Craxi the late presumably atheist Kleptosocialist former prime minister and a current ally of Silvio Berlusconi.
He was also the Italian opponent of desert storm most often seen on TV during desert storm. This made sense, since the Pope was opposed to desert storm. A slightly similar name in FreeRepublic.com's translation of an unconfirmed story in a commie rag is plenty but I mean plenty for me to accuse Mr Formigoni.
He will sue me (in my dreams)
Colin Powell via Reuters
Max Sawicky and Brad DeLong
"Because a large military presence will still be required under U.S. command, some would say 'Well you are not giving full sovereignty'. But we are giving sovereignty so that sovereignty can be used to say, 'We invite you to remain'. That is a sovereign decision,"
It is not a decision at all unless that "sovereignty" can also be used to say "We demand that you leave." The fraud would be more subtle if he had said "Because we believe that a large military presence will still be required under U.S. command , some would say 'Well you are not giving full sovereignty'. But we are giving sovereignty so that sovereignty can be used to say, 'We invite you to remain' or 'It's time for you to go'. That is a sovereign decision,"
It's not like they would have to really let the "sovereign" Iraqi interim government tell them to leave and live out the day. I mean a fig leaf doesn't work if you insist on using it to wipe your feet.
Max Sawicky and Brad DeLong
"Because a large military presence will still be required under U.S. command, some would say 'Well you are not giving full sovereignty'. But we are giving sovereignty so that sovereignty can be used to say, 'We invite you to remain'. That is a sovereign decision,"
It is not a decision at all unless that "sovereignty" can also be used to say "We demand that you leave." The fraud would be more subtle if he had said "Because we believe that a large military presence will still be required under U.S. command , some would say 'Well you are not giving full sovereignty'. But we are giving sovereignty so that sovereignty can be used to say, 'We invite you to remain' or 'It's time for you to go'. That is a sovereign decision,"
It's not like they would have to really let the "sovereign" Iraqi interim government tell them to leave and live out the day. I mean a fig leaf doesn't work if you insist on using it to wipe your feet.
This is weird. I wanted to comment on Matt Yglesias as follows below. I typed www.bloger.com not www.blogger.com. I wondered if my computer had learned to read my mind.
My comment
"lots of second- and third-generation neos who are the intellectual descendents of people who made the transition from liberalism"
Two, at least, are biological descendents too. Many suprising things have happened to the first generation neos since they dined in alcove B (Trotskyite) of the CUNY caffeteria, but could they ever have imagined that they would bring back the hereditary principal by begetting or bearing a neoconservative ruling class ?
My comment
"lots of second- and third-generation neos who are the intellectual descendents of people who made the transition from liberalism"
Two, at least, are biological descendents too. Many suprising things have happened to the first generation neos since they dined in alcove B (Trotskyite) of the CUNY caffeteria, but could they ever have imagined that they would bring back the hereditary principal by begetting or bearing a neoconservative ruling class ?
Friday, April 30, 2004
What Matt Drudge posts
"
McCain Letter to Sinclair Broadcast on Preemption of Nightline
Fri Apr 30 2004 11:29:49 ET
Washington, D.C. - U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) issued the following letter today to Mr. David Smith, President and CEO of Sinclair Broadcast Group, in response to the preemption of this evening's Nightline program:
I write to strongly protest your decision to instruct Sinclair's ABC affiliates to preempt this evening's Nightline program. I find deeply offensive Sinclair's objection to Nightline's intention to broadcast the names and photographs of Americans who gave their lives in service to our country in Iraq.
I supported the President's decision to go to war in Iraq, and remain a strong supporter of that decision. But every American has a responsibility to understand fully the terrible costs of war and the extraordinary sacrifices it requires of those brave men and women who volunteer to defend the rest of us; lest we ever forget or grow insensitive to how grave a decision it is for our government to order Americans into combat. It is a solemn responsibility of elected officials to accept responsibility for our decision and its consequences, and, with those who disseminate the news, to ensure that Americans are fully informed of those consequences.
There is no valid reason for Sinclair to shirk its responsibility in what I assume is a very misguided attempt to prevent your viewers from completely appreciating the extraordinary sacrifices made on their behalf by Americans serving in Iraq. War is an awful, but sometimes necessary business. Your decision to deny your viewers an opportunity to be reminded of war's terrible costs, in all their heartbreaking detail, is a gross disservice to the public, and to the men and women of the United States Armed Forces. It is, in short, sir, unpatriotic. I hope it meets with the public opprobrium it most certainly deserves."
"
McCain Letter to Sinclair Broadcast on Preemption of Nightline
Fri Apr 30 2004 11:29:49 ET
Washington, D.C. - U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) issued the following letter today to Mr. David Smith, President and CEO of Sinclair Broadcast Group, in response to the preemption of this evening's Nightline program:
I write to strongly protest your decision to instruct Sinclair's ABC affiliates to preempt this evening's Nightline program. I find deeply offensive Sinclair's objection to Nightline's intention to broadcast the names and photographs of Americans who gave their lives in service to our country in Iraq.
I supported the President's decision to go to war in Iraq, and remain a strong supporter of that decision. But every American has a responsibility to understand fully the terrible costs of war and the extraordinary sacrifices it requires of those brave men and women who volunteer to defend the rest of us; lest we ever forget or grow insensitive to how grave a decision it is for our government to order Americans into combat. It is a solemn responsibility of elected officials to accept responsibility for our decision and its consequences, and, with those who disseminate the news, to ensure that Americans are fully informed of those consequences.
There is no valid reason for Sinclair to shirk its responsibility in what I assume is a very misguided attempt to prevent your viewers from completely appreciating the extraordinary sacrifices made on their behalf by Americans serving in Iraq. War is an awful, but sometimes necessary business. Your decision to deny your viewers an opportunity to be reminded of war's terrible costs, in all their heartbreaking detail, is a gross disservice to the public, and to the men and women of the United States Armed Forces. It is, in short, sir, unpatriotic. I hope it meets with the public opprobrium it most certainly deserves."
Innumeracy in the New York Times
Great wonderful important cancer treatment news slightly blurred by an odd approach to statistics of very small samples.
Compare and contrast the words and the numbers
Words
"Stories about such rescues from death's door have given hope to tens of thousands of cancer patients who have tried Iressa, ...
At the same time, patients without the mutation might forgo Iressa, saving them or the health care system $1,900 a month for a drug that is not likely to help them. Still, some of the researchers said that the findings were based on small samples ...
"The question then is what if you don't have this mutation? I don't think there's enough information to say you shouldn't get the drug.""
Numbers
"One research group found a mutation in all five of the tumors it checked from patients who had responded to the drug and in none from the four patients who had not responded. ...
The other study found the mutations in the tumors of eight out of nine responders, ... and in no tumors of seven nonresponders. "
So of 12 people with cancer and without the mutation one responded to Iressa. That's one out of 12. The article doesn't say what kind of cancer that patient had (from context I guessed lung cancer). A one out of 12 performance in treatment of patients where conventional treatment failed is outstandingly excellent. It is not as good as the 13 out of 13 performance of people whose tumors had the mutation, but it is crazy to even discuss the possibility of not giving the drug to people who lack the mutation based on a sampel with 1 out of 12 success.
The 1 out of 12 isn't the only data useful for estimating what fraction of cancers without the mutation respond to Iressa. The calculation of the overall response rate from a large sample (about 10%) and the fraction of tumors with the mutation 16 out of 103 are also useful information. After some complicated (and probably incorrect) calculations, which I will not bore myself typing up, I get a maximimum probability estimate that a cancer without the mutation will respond to Iressa of 1 in 16 which is still excellent.
Now if 0 cancers without the mutation had responded, the point about how the sample is so small that this does not reject the hypothesis of a clinically significant probability of response would have been valid. Clearly it was perfectly possible that none of the 12 treated patients with tumors without the mutation would have gotten lucky. In a sample of 12, one success makes a huge difference in the point estimate of the probability of success. Ignoring this case in the discussion is crazy.
Anyway ANDREW POLLACK and the doctor he quoted very briefly (perhaps deleting reasoning like the above) reach a reasonable conclusion. The article should be very prominent because it is important to spead the great news as fast as possible.
[update]
Ransom M Wardell writes
"Response rates were 18.4 and 11.8%, and disease control rates were 54.4 and 42.2%, " This means that the roughly 10% was very very roughly (and shows further disinterest in numbers even if they are very important numbers). It also reminds me that response and cure are different. I don't know how long people have to do OK to declare their disease controlled. 1/12 or 1/16 times 42.2% = still great for non small cell lung cardinoma.
Great wonderful important cancer treatment news slightly blurred by an odd approach to statistics of very small samples.
Compare and contrast the words and the numbers
Words
"Stories about such rescues from death's door have given hope to tens of thousands of cancer patients who have tried Iressa, ...
At the same time, patients without the mutation might forgo Iressa, saving them or the health care system $1,900 a month for a drug that is not likely to help them. Still, some of the researchers said that the findings were based on small samples ...
"The question then is what if you don't have this mutation? I don't think there's enough information to say you shouldn't get the drug.""
Numbers
"One research group found a mutation in all five of the tumors it checked from patients who had responded to the drug and in none from the four patients who had not responded. ...
The other study found the mutations in the tumors of eight out of nine responders, ... and in no tumors of seven nonresponders. "
So of 12 people with cancer and without the mutation one responded to Iressa. That's one out of 12. The article doesn't say what kind of cancer that patient had (from context I guessed lung cancer). A one out of 12 performance in treatment of patients where conventional treatment failed is outstandingly excellent. It is not as good as the 13 out of 13 performance of people whose tumors had the mutation, but it is crazy to even discuss the possibility of not giving the drug to people who lack the mutation based on a sampel with 1 out of 12 success.
The 1 out of 12 isn't the only data useful for estimating what fraction of cancers without the mutation respond to Iressa. The calculation of the overall response rate from a large sample (about 10%) and the fraction of tumors with the mutation 16 out of 103 are also useful information. After some complicated (and probably incorrect) calculations, which I will not bore myself typing up, I get a maximimum probability estimate that a cancer without the mutation will respond to Iressa of 1 in 16 which is still excellent.
Now if 0 cancers without the mutation had responded, the point about how the sample is so small that this does not reject the hypothesis of a clinically significant probability of response would have been valid. Clearly it was perfectly possible that none of the 12 treated patients with tumors without the mutation would have gotten lucky. In a sample of 12, one success makes a huge difference in the point estimate of the probability of success. Ignoring this case in the discussion is crazy.
Anyway ANDREW POLLACK and the doctor he quoted very briefly (perhaps deleting reasoning like the above) reach a reasonable conclusion. The article should be very prominent because it is important to spead the great news as fast as possible.
[update]
Ransom M Wardell writes
"Response rates were 18.4 and 11.8%, and disease control rates were 54.4 and 42.2%, " This means that the roughly 10% was very very roughly (and shows further disinterest in numbers even if they are very important numbers). It also reminds me that response and cure are different. I don't know how long people have to do OK to declare their disease controlled. 1/12 or 1/16 times 42.2% = still great for non small cell lung cardinoma.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)