Oxymoron of the Day
Althouse, for instance, is by any objective measure deeply shallow
Heh indeed, but is she shallowly deep ?
This, however, is much better
"Althouse is essentially a Joseph Heller character without the verisimilitude."
While this is a [fucking awesome] very good use of one of the less glorious words in the English language
"This is not "civil discourse," no matter how many times Kopel doesn't say "fuck." "
Say it Thersites say it
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Friday, March 09, 2007
It's all a Commie plot
"Lula recalled that he has been pushing ethanol on Bush for some time."
So that's it. Lula (slogan no longer "our aim is not to reform capitalism it is to eliminate it") has been pushing Bush off the wagon, presumably on the Leninist principle that "the worse he is the better he is."
Seriously though, I never expected to see a photo of W with Lula who was declaring a "a strategic alliance that will allow us to convince the world that everyone can change the energy blend."
Sure showing that everyone can change his political brand.
p.s. I admire Lula very much and also admire his willingness to do whatever it takes to fight global warming, even declare a strategic alliance with the worst president ever. And why is it that I am sure that the guy who left school when he was 14 had to explain everything slowly and clearly to the Harvard MBA ?
"Lula recalled that he has been pushing ethanol on Bush for some time."
So that's it. Lula (slogan no longer "our aim is not to reform capitalism it is to eliminate it") has been pushing Bush off the wagon, presumably on the Leninist principle that "the worse he is the better he is."
Seriously though, I never expected to see a photo of W with Lula who was declaring a "a strategic alliance that will allow us to convince the world that everyone can change the energy blend."
Sure showing that everyone can change his political brand.
p.s. I admire Lula very much and also admire his willingness to do whatever it takes to fight global warming, even declare a strategic alliance with the worst president ever. And why is it that I am sure that the guy who left school when he was 14 had to explain everything slowly and clearly to the Harvard MBA ?
Anonymity Squared Digest
In which I compare and attempt to contrast the Washington Post and the Bush administration
John Solomon and Barton Gellman declare that they have granted anonymity to Bush administration officials speaking with the permission of their superiors.
"But senior officials, speaking with permission on the condition that they not be identified, "
I thought such an action was forbidden by the Washington Post's rules for granting anonymity (which must mean I am ignorant about Post policy). It certainly should be. I have not removed relevant context from Solomon and Gellman's non explanation of why they granted anonymity. They did not bother to give any explanation let alone justification for their decision or for the request for anonymity.
They remind me of someone. As noted by Glenn Greenwald, Bush doesn't always try to hide the fact that he is breaking the rules set by congress. The NSA warrentless wiretaps show that he does break the law in secret, but, more often he does so openly declaring his criminal intent in signing statements
Solomon and Gellman do politely refute an attempt at deception by an anonymous sourcewho cited an anonymous squared source
So we see that Solomon and Gellman are perfectly capable of understanding that their anonymous sources claim based on his or her anonymous sources is to be dismissed. Perhaps this is a hint to the reader to irnore their paraphrase of anonymous sources demanding anonymity while declaring that they are " speaking with permission." Perhaps their aim is to show how gross is the Bush administration's abuse of anonymity. Perhaps President Bush's sole aim is to finally convince Americans that constitutional safeguards are really needed and none of us is safe if we don't protect the rights of the accused and marinalised.
I am dismayed that my only defence of The Washington Post is to argue, with Lenin, that "the worse it is the better it is."
In which I compare and attempt to contrast the Washington Post and the Bush administration
John Solomon and Barton Gellman declare that they have granted anonymity to Bush administration officials speaking with the permission of their superiors.
"But senior officials, speaking with permission on the condition that they not be identified, "
I thought such an action was forbidden by the Washington Post's rules for granting anonymity (which must mean I am ignorant about Post policy). It certainly should be. I have not removed relevant context from Solomon and Gellman's non explanation of why they granted anonymity. They did not bother to give any explanation let alone justification for their decision or for the request for anonymity.
They remind me of someone. As noted by Glenn Greenwald, Bush doesn't always try to hide the fact that he is breaking the rules set by congress. The NSA warrentless wiretaps show that he does break the law in secret, but, more often he does so openly declaring his criminal intent in signing statements
Solomon and Gellman do politely refute an attempt at deception by an anonymous sourcewho cited an anonymous squared source
FBI and Justice Department officials have long described national security letters as an indispensable tool in combating terrorism, and Fine's report, according to one official who cited excerpts, said investigators told the inspector general that the letters "contributed significantly to many counterterrorism and counterintelligence investigations." Fine did not make an independent assessment of the efficacy of the letters as investigative tools.The source clearly attempted to claim that the report also implies that the letters are useful. This is based on the claims of un named "investigators" who are the anonymous source's anonymous sources. As far as I can tell, the anonymous source did not dicuss possible motives for the anonymous^2 sources assertion. There is now way to know if they were people attempting to justify their misconduct. Note, for example, that the transcript of trials include arguments made by the prosecutor even if the accused is found innocent. An anonymous source can always claim that an un-named participant in a trial resulting in aquital said that guilt had been proved. That would be the prosecutor.
So we see that Solomon and Gellman are perfectly capable of understanding that their anonymous sources claim based on his or her anonymous sources is to be dismissed. Perhaps this is a hint to the reader to irnore their paraphrase of anonymous sources demanding anonymity while declaring that they are " speaking with permission." Perhaps their aim is to show how gross is the Bush administration's abuse of anonymity. Perhaps President Bush's sole aim is to finally convince Americans that constitutional safeguards are really needed and none of us is safe if we don't protect the rights of the accused and marinalised.
I am dismayed that my only defence of The Washington Post is to argue, with Lenin, that "the worse it is the better it is."
Can One be Anti Union and Egalitarian
Mickey Kaus is neither and Matthew Yglesias says that he is, at least, coherant. I respond
I don't have any idea why Kaus insists on calling himself a liberal (if indeed he still does I haven't kept up with his development over the past decade or so). However, I think it is easy to be anti-union and egalitarian. Even if one rejects unions, there is another path to increased equality -- increased progressivity of taxes. What is wrong with that approach ? Hmm is it politically impossible ? Doesn't seem so, so long as the middle class gets tax cuts, increased progressivity is about as popular a policy as there is (recall 60% wanted to eliminate the FICA ceiling and that is a pure tax increase). I think any politician who stakes out a clear class war soak the rich position will win the White House. Odd that none do.
Would an increase in taxes on the rich have huge economic costs ? Sure doesn't look that way from the cases of the Clinton tax increase, the Bush tax cuts, the relative performance of the economy under Reagan and under Eisenhower and, I could go on, but you (Matt) have done so at some length here already.
So what's the problem ? I think unions are important because they help workers and managers interact as more nearly equals in power. They do promote equality, however, there are feasible highly popular policies which can do much more to reduce inequality.
I don't know why there is not a movement for increased progressivity. I suspect it is because Fred Hiatt would disapprove.
Mickey Kaus is neither and Matthew Yglesias says that he is, at least, coherant. I respond
I don't have any idea why Kaus insists on calling himself a liberal (if indeed he still does I haven't kept up with his development over the past decade or so). However, I think it is easy to be anti-union and egalitarian. Even if one rejects unions, there is another path to increased equality -- increased progressivity of taxes. What is wrong with that approach ? Hmm is it politically impossible ? Doesn't seem so, so long as the middle class gets tax cuts, increased progressivity is about as popular a policy as there is (recall 60% wanted to eliminate the FICA ceiling and that is a pure tax increase). I think any politician who stakes out a clear class war soak the rich position will win the White House. Odd that none do.
Would an increase in taxes on the rich have huge economic costs ? Sure doesn't look that way from the cases of the Clinton tax increase, the Bush tax cuts, the relative performance of the economy under Reagan and under Eisenhower and, I could go on, but you (Matt) have done so at some length here already.
So what's the problem ? I think unions are important because they help workers and managers interact as more nearly equals in power. They do promote equality, however, there are feasible highly popular policies which can do much more to reduce inequality.
I don't know why there is not a movement for increased progressivity. I suspect it is because Fred Hiatt would disapprove.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
The Huey Long March to Power
The all tax cuts all the time strategy lost popularity especially because the tax cuts were so regressive. Waaaaaaay back in 1992 during real time polling of reactions to a presidential debate from Clinton supporters, Bush supporters and undecided voters all three agreed with Clinton (pushing the "agree" button) when he said "only rich people have had their taxes cut". This was, of course, absolutely true given the FICA tax increases.
Clinton's popularity tanked when he decided he couldn't manage a middle class tax cut. This was (uncharacteristically) dumb. The richest 1 or 2 or 2% paid 85% of the Clinton Tax increase. It would have been possible to have the richest 1 or 2 (or 3 only 1% care about the difference) pay 105% and manage a middle class tax cut.
The people want to soak the rich and spread it out thin. They say so every chance they get (remember polling during the social security privatization debate when 60% wanted to eliminate the payroll tax ceiling).
No party, indeed no politician, is going with this. I think it reflects, partly, the power of money in politics, more, the effect of self interest of opinion leaders and most the effect of group interest among the elite distorting debate and creating a consensus that such a policy is totally beyond the pale. Even I feel the need to use Huey Long's phrasing to grasp the nettle.
When some politician finally dares to propose raising rich people's taxes and cutting everyone elses, well we better hope that he or she has more respect for the constitution than Bush does or it will be in danger, because that poltician will have a dangerous level of popular support.
OK OK so the title goes beyond Huey and grasping the nettle and I do, it appears, owe something to the thought of Marx. So ?
The all tax cuts all the time strategy lost popularity especially because the tax cuts were so regressive. Waaaaaaay back in 1992 during real time polling of reactions to a presidential debate from Clinton supporters, Bush supporters and undecided voters all three agreed with Clinton (pushing the "agree" button) when he said "only rich people have had their taxes cut". This was, of course, absolutely true given the FICA tax increases.
Clinton's popularity tanked when he decided he couldn't manage a middle class tax cut. This was (uncharacteristically) dumb. The richest 1 or 2 or 2% paid 85% of the Clinton Tax increase. It would have been possible to have the richest 1 or 2 (or 3 only 1% care about the difference) pay 105% and manage a middle class tax cut.
The people want to soak the rich and spread it out thin. They say so every chance they get (remember polling during the social security privatization debate when 60% wanted to eliminate the payroll tax ceiling).
No party, indeed no politician, is going with this. I think it reflects, partly, the power of money in politics, more, the effect of self interest of opinion leaders and most the effect of group interest among the elite distorting debate and creating a consensus that such a policy is totally beyond the pale. Even I feel the need to use Huey Long's phrasing to grasp the nettle.
When some politician finally dares to propose raising rich people's taxes and cutting everyone elses, well we better hope that he or she has more respect for the constitution than Bush does or it will be in danger, because that poltician will have a dangerous level of popular support.
OK OK so the title goes beyond Huey and grasping the nettle and I do, it appears, owe something to the thought of Marx. So ?
Sleeper
I just saw "Sleeper" for the second time. I saw it when it was released in 1973 or so. I found it very funny then. Much less so this time. Maybe that was because I saw it dubbed in Italian.
"Sleeper" is not easy to translate. For example, how do you translate the statement that World War III started when Albert Shanker got his hands on the atomic bomb ? Answer for "Albert Shanker" write Pope Paul VII'th. Indeed the last step in Nuclear proliferation will come when the Vatican gets the bomb and Pope Paul VII'th doesn't have standing to sue for slander even in Italy.
Ahhh Albert Shanker. I would remember him, except that I missed the seminar he gave at Harvard and was called on it by Richard Freeman. Head of the AFT, author of the long running regular paid commercial "Where We Stand" appearing in The New Republic (which was usually by far the best article in the magazine and also not completely worthless). Went to jail for taking New York teachers out on strike and, well, appeared as a punch line in "Sleeper."
Then he became a leader of union inovation (not to mention very popular with people who hated the NEA). The really weird thing (refered by Richard Freeman in around 1988) is that Shanker said that ,in the model school somewhere in Florida managed by the AFT, they outsourced (which then meant to small firms in the USA not to Bangalore) because the cost advantage was so huge.
1988 was soo long ago. Now I read stories about how contracting out is a total disaster in The Army Times. I feel like Rip Van Winkle or ... Woody Allen in Sleeper.
I just saw "Sleeper" for the second time. I saw it when it was released in 1973 or so. I found it very funny then. Much less so this time. Maybe that was because I saw it dubbed in Italian.
"Sleeper" is not easy to translate. For example, how do you translate the statement that World War III started when Albert Shanker got his hands on the atomic bomb ? Answer for "Albert Shanker" write Pope Paul VII'th. Indeed the last step in Nuclear proliferation will come when the Vatican gets the bomb and Pope Paul VII'th doesn't have standing to sue for slander even in Italy.
Ahhh Albert Shanker. I would remember him, except that I missed the seminar he gave at Harvard and was called on it by Richard Freeman. Head of the AFT, author of the long running regular paid commercial "Where We Stand" appearing in The New Republic (which was usually by far the best article in the magazine and also not completely worthless). Went to jail for taking New York teachers out on strike and, well, appeared as a punch line in "Sleeper."
Then he became a leader of union inovation (not to mention very popular with people who hated the NEA). The really weird thing (refered by Richard Freeman in around 1988) is that Shanker said that ,in the model school somewhere in Florida managed by the AFT, they outsourced (which then meant to small firms in the USA not to Bangalore) because the cost advantage was so huge.
1988 was soo long ago. Now I read stories about how contracting out is a total disaster in The Army Times. I feel like Rip Van Winkle or ... Woody Allen in Sleeper.
All quiet on the Western Front of the War on Easter
Both John Gibson and Brad DeLong have complaints about warlike activities in Walnut Creek.
This may be the first sentence ever written that begins "Both John Gibson and Brad DeLong".
John Gibson believes that the War on Easter began five years ago in Walnut Creek (in an event known as "the shot not heard round the world."
Brad DeLong fears being mistaken for a Turkey
I just hope that the "U.S. Department of Agriculture hunter" doesn't off the Spring Bunny as he or she hides decorated Spring eggs.
Both John Gibson and Brad DeLong have complaints about warlike activities in Walnut Creek.
This may be the first sentence ever written that begins "Both John Gibson and Brad DeLong".
John Gibson believes that the War on Easter began five years ago in Walnut Creek (in an event known as "the shot not heard round the world."
This year, John Gibson is carrying the “War on Easter” mantra, hailing it today as “an incredible development.” Gibson cited efforts by the city of Walnut Creek, California, to rebrand the Easter bunny as the “spring bunny.”
Brad DeLong fears being mistaken for a Turkey
A Walnut Creek retirement community is using a new tactic in the escalating suburban struggle to rein in wild turkeys that damage landscaping and cover sidewalks and decks with bird poop. A hunter is shooting the birds with a silencer-equipped rifle
I just hope that the "U.S. Department of Agriculture hunter" doesn't off the Spring Bunny as he or she hides decorated Spring eggs.
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Dan Eggen and Paul Kane show how it's done
Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said that "a private and collegial conversation" was "being twisted into a perceived threat by former disgruntled employees grandstanding before Congress."No need to say that Roehrkasse lied. Presenting the fact immediately after his lie makes it clear.
The six U.S. attorneys who appeared yesterday had declined to testify voluntarily. They were subpoenaed by a House Judiciary subcommittee and threatened with subpoenas in the Senate.
What I was wrong about in March 2003
In response to a challenge by Brian Fleming (who really needs the traffic right now).
I thought that there were chemical and biological weapons in Iraq (and arguedthat this was one of the reasons we should not invade). I still think the decision to invade would have been an even bigger mistake if there had been chemical or biological weapons in Iraq, but there weren't.
I thought an Apache just crashed (like the ones that crashed in the Kosovo war among other things causing 2 deaths on a training mission) . In fact it was brought down by small arms fire.
In response to a challenge by Brian Fleming (who really needs the traffic right now).
I thought that there were chemical and biological weapons in Iraq (and arguedthat this was one of the reasons we should not invade). I still think the decision to invade would have been an even bigger mistake if there had been chemical or biological weapons in Iraq, but there weren't.
I thought an Apache just crashed (like the ones that crashed in the Kosovo war among other things causing 2 deaths on a training mission) . In fact it was brought down by small arms fire.
Libby Convicted
I was glad when I read of the verdict, but reading the story I felt sorry for Liddy who is clearly taking the fall for Cheney.
The article seems quite good to me, but there is an amazing snippet
This too is interesting
The testimony of witnesses for the defence was all irrelevant to the case (Libby's defence team really had nothing to work with).
I was glad when I read of the verdict, but reading the story I felt sorry for Liddy who is clearly taking the fall for Cheney.
The article seems quite good to me, but there is an amazing snippet
Cheney was motivated in part by Wilson's erroneous allegation that the CIA had undertaken the mission to Africa solely at the vice president's request.When exactly did Wilson make that allegation ? In his op ed he wrote that he was told that the OVP had expressed interests. I don't recall any mention of Cheney the individual, or the word "solely". Of course Wilson's claim is known to be true, and, indeed, Cheney publicly conceded (refrained from denying) that he personally had expressed interest. It seems to me that even wth a verdict, Journalistic standards of balance require some hint of partial agreement with the convict and some criticism of the victim.
This too is interesting
The case also broke controversial new ground when prosecutors forced journalists to cooperate in a criminal probe.[snip]
By the trial's end, journalists, all but one of whom testified about once-confidential interviews, accounted for 10 of the 19 witnesses to appear at the trial. . Seven of the nine defense witnesses were journalists, including Bob Woodward, an assistant managing editor at The Washington Post, and Robert D. Novak, the syndicated columnist who was the first journalist to disclose Plame's identity in print. Three of the government's 10 witnesses were reporters.I assume that the one journalist who did not testify about once confidential interviews is Tim Russert (who appealed to the first amendment in an attempt to quash his supoena but who never promised Libby confidentiality). Note 7 or 10 journalists called by the defence and (by my count) 7 of 9 who broke confidentiality. Still only "prosecutors" actions are controversial.
The testimony of witnesses for the defence was all irrelevant to the case (Libby's defence team really had nothing to work with).
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
I have been weighed in the balance and found non wanting
Hello,
Your blog has been reviewed, verified, and cleared for regular use so that
it will no longer appear as potential spam. If you sign out of Blogger and
sign back in again, you should be able to post as normal. Thanks for your
patience, and we apologize for any inconvenience this has caused.
Sincerely,
The Blogger Team
Hello,
Your blog has been reviewed, verified, and cleared for regular use so that
it will no longer appear as potential spam. If you sign out of Blogger and
sign back in again, you should be able to post as normal. Thanks for your
patience, and we apologize for any inconvenience this has caused.
Sincerely,
The Blogger Team
Monday, March 05, 2007
In Which I attempt to zing Mark Kleiman who wrote
"After all, Jefferson himself — no orthodox believer — chose to frame his assertion of human equality and human rights in religious terms."
I believe that Kleiman is referring to the words "and are endowed by their creator with certain rights including ..." in the declaration of independence. The declaration was a bill passed by the continental congress after Jefferson's draft declaration was amended. IIRC Jefferson wrote "and from that creation proceed certain rights including ...". I believe that Jefferson's draft made no mention of a creator and was amended to Christianize it (he was almost as unusual then as a non Christian non Jewish politician would be today).
On the broader point Kleiman writes "In fact, the use of religious language to appeal to black (and Latino) voters isn't controversial among liberals. The controversy is about whether liberals should try to woo Bible-believing, church-going, born-again whites. To which I say, "Why not?""
I think the controversy is over how far to go to try to woo them. I don't know of anyone who objects to Obama's use of Christian references in his speaches (I sure don't and I'm an atheist). The question is whether it is time to compromise over issues which are key to "Bible-believing, church-going, born-again whites" meaning abortion, gay marriage and laws against discrimination against gays.
"After all, Jefferson himself — no orthodox believer — chose to frame his assertion of human equality and human rights in religious terms."
I believe that Kleiman is referring to the words "and are endowed by their creator with certain rights including ..." in the declaration of independence. The declaration was a bill passed by the continental congress after Jefferson's draft declaration was amended. IIRC Jefferson wrote "and from that creation proceed certain rights including ...". I believe that Jefferson's draft made no mention of a creator and was amended to Christianize it (he was almost as unusual then as a non Christian non Jewish politician would be today).
On the broader point Kleiman writes "In fact, the use of religious language to appeal to black (and Latino) voters isn't controversial among liberals. The controversy is about whether liberals should try to woo Bible-believing, church-going, born-again whites. To which I say, "Why not?""
I think the controversy is over how far to go to try to woo them. I don't know of anyone who objects to Obama's use of Christian references in his speaches (I sure don't and I'm an atheist). The question is whether it is time to compromise over issues which are key to "Bible-believing, church-going, born-again whites" meaning abortion, gay marriage and laws against discrimination against gays.
Mark Thoma asks an Important Question
via Kevin Drum
I think that Thoma could rephrase his question
to "We already know how [US] unions [have] worked, pretty much, but can we [they] do better?
Unions in different countries are very different. US unions have always been characterised by relatively low membership, high dues and rich strike funds, and complete independence of each union from the AFL-CIO. The US has an extraordinarily high wage differential between unionized and un-unionized workers. Unions in some other countries aim for universal membership (in Sweden there are more union members than workers). There they act like an interest group aiming to represent the interests of workers (a very unspecial interest group).
Consider the case of Robert Barro. I think it is safe to say he is not a pinko. Soon after moving from Rochester to Harvard, he wrote a paper on employment protection laws (restrictions on firing) and the duration of fluctuations in unemployment. In this paper, he distinguished between US type unions and "neocorporativist" unions. He said he gave the paper in Rochester and someone said "three months at Harvard and you are talking like a sociologist."
Unions can do three things, they can strike, they can lobby and they can provide services to their members. To have effective strikes, unions need money in the strike fund. To lobby, they need mass membership. In the USA public sector workers are much more likely to be unionised than private sector workers. Often they are not allowed to strike. Still the unions are powerful, because they represent blocks of voters. I personally think US unions should focus on political activism (getting the votes out for Democrats). I believe that this way they would help their members and help non members too (including, I might add, and in my partisan opinion, shareholders).
I wrote two things above, then corrected myself. I thought of direct services. The vast majority of Americans love social security. Who came up with the idea ? His name was Ferdinand Lassalle and he was a German union organiser. Bismark decided not to let the unions keep all the credit for such a great product. Lassalle was a Jew who had a huge mass following in Germany. I think he was on to something.
So how about this. Why don't unions provide health insurance to their members ? They are large groups and don't have adverse selection problems. Workers do not have to be expelled from the union when they are laid off. I think part of the problem is that unions make firms provide health insurance, so uninsured unionised workers are rare (also can you spell nue Heimat ? I thought you couldn't).
Now I really think the solution to the problem is very simple and has nothing to do with Unions. An increase in inequality can be reversed by increasing the progressivity of the tax code. This is very simple, wildly popular, demonstrably works (google Clinton and "tax increase" and Bush and "tax cuts") and would guarantee power for the party which did it for the forseable future, provided that the increase in progressivity included cutting taxes paid by most people (google Clinton and "middle class tax cut").
However, Fred Hiatt wouldn't like it, so it won't happen.
update:
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "In Which I attempt to zing Mark Kleiman who wrote ...":
By October 2006, more than 100,000 veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan had already been variously granted disability status by the Veterans Administration. Thinking of what has happened in Iraq these 4 years, I cannot imagine how many are the Iraqi disabled. I still have not the slightest idea however why we went to war in and, worse, occupied Iraq. We need to leave Iraq, immediately.
Also too controversial for a Democrat to say?
anne
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "In Which I attempt to zing Mark Kleiman who wrote ...":
Darn, I posted these thoughts on the wrong thread. I do not quite understand the format yet. Sorry.
No problem. I think that, given public opinion, anything but "leave Iraq ASAP" will soon be too controversial for a Democrat (or a Republican) to say. Of course in 10 years half of the people who agree we have to get out quick will blame Democrats and liberals for the defeat.
ahhh I see the posting issue was related to many comments (blogger didn't tell me which thread so they have appeared above)
Comments:
Also too controversial for a Democrat to say?
anne
via Kevin Drum
Is a return to unions the best solution to the market power imbalance? Should we return to the past, or should we try to use the changing political landscape as an opportunity to build better institutions for both workers and firms, institutions that offer workers the same degree of bargaining power that unions provide, and the the same degree of income, health, and retirement security, but do so more efficiently? We already know how unions work, pretty much, but can we do better?
I think that Thoma could rephrase his question
to "We already know how [US] unions [have] worked, pretty much, but can we [they] do better?
Unions in different countries are very different. US unions have always been characterised by relatively low membership, high dues and rich strike funds, and complete independence of each union from the AFL-CIO. The US has an extraordinarily high wage differential between unionized and un-unionized workers. Unions in some other countries aim for universal membership (in Sweden there are more union members than workers). There they act like an interest group aiming to represent the interests of workers (a very unspecial interest group).
Consider the case of Robert Barro. I think it is safe to say he is not a pinko. Soon after moving from Rochester to Harvard, he wrote a paper on employment protection laws (restrictions on firing) and the duration of fluctuations in unemployment. In this paper, he distinguished between US type unions and "neocorporativist" unions. He said he gave the paper in Rochester and someone said "three months at Harvard and you are talking like a sociologist."
Unions can do three things, they can strike, they can lobby and they can provide services to their members. To have effective strikes, unions need money in the strike fund. To lobby, they need mass membership. In the USA public sector workers are much more likely to be unionised than private sector workers. Often they are not allowed to strike. Still the unions are powerful, because they represent blocks of voters. I personally think US unions should focus on political activism (getting the votes out for Democrats). I believe that this way they would help their members and help non members too (including, I might add, and in my partisan opinion, shareholders).
I wrote two things above, then corrected myself. I thought of direct services. The vast majority of Americans love social security. Who came up with the idea ? His name was Ferdinand Lassalle and he was a German union organiser. Bismark decided not to let the unions keep all the credit for such a great product. Lassalle was a Jew who had a huge mass following in Germany. I think he was on to something.
So how about this. Why don't unions provide health insurance to their members ? They are large groups and don't have adverse selection problems. Workers do not have to be expelled from the union when they are laid off. I think part of the problem is that unions make firms provide health insurance, so uninsured unionised workers are rare (also can you spell nue Heimat ? I thought you couldn't).
Now I really think the solution to the problem is very simple and has nothing to do with Unions. An increase in inequality can be reversed by increasing the progressivity of the tax code. This is very simple, wildly popular, demonstrably works (google Clinton and "tax increase" and Bush and "tax cuts") and would guarantee power for the party which did it for the forseable future, provided that the increase in progressivity included cutting taxes paid by most people (google Clinton and "middle class tax cut").
However, Fred Hiatt wouldn't like it, so it won't happen.
update:
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "In Which I attempt to zing Mark Kleiman who wrote ...":
By October 2006, more than 100,000 veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan had already been variously granted disability status by the Veterans Administration. Thinking of what has happened in Iraq these 4 years, I cannot imagine how many are the Iraqi disabled. I still have not the slightest idea however why we went to war in and, worse, occupied Iraq. We need to leave Iraq, immediately.
Also too controversial for a Democrat to say?
anne
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "In Which I attempt to zing Mark Kleiman who wrote ...":
Darn, I posted these thoughts on the wrong thread. I do not quite understand the format yet. Sorry.
No problem. I think that, given public opinion, anything but "leave Iraq ASAP" will soon be too controversial for a Democrat (or a Republican) to say. Of course in 10 years half of the people who agree we have to get out quick will blame Democrats and liberals for the defeat.
ahhh I see the posting issue was related to many comments (blogger didn't tell me which thread so they have appeared above)
Comments:
Phooey; all Democrats need to do to be successful is become Republicans, conservative Republicans, radically-conservative Republicans. This sort of rubbish makes me want not to go to church next weekend.
If only Franklin Roosevelt has been a Hoover Republican, all would have been well.
If only Franklin Roosevelt has been a Hoover Republican, all would have been well.
What amazes me is how little these supposed Democratic voices know of what it has been to be a Democrat. These folks have forgotten how to read.
anne
anne
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/us/21janitor.html?ex=1321765200&en=f139e42d0ca84d0a&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
November 21, 2006
Cleaning Companies in Accord With Striking Houston Janitors
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
Houston's major cleaning companies and the union representing 5,300 janitors there announced a tentative contract yesterday that ends a monthlong strike, raises the workers' hourly wages by nearly 50 percent over two years and provides them health coverage.
Under the three-year deal, the first for the janitors since they unionized last year, their pay, which now averages $5.25 an hour, will increase to $6.25 on Jan. 1, 2007; to $7.25 on Jan. 1, 2008; and to $7.75 on Jan. 1, 2009.
Further, the employers agreed to increase a janitor's typical shift to six hours a day, from four. Many of the janitors had said they were being given too few hours of work to support their families.
As a result of the rise in both hourly pay and the hours in the workweek, the employees expect to see their paychecks double over the next couple of years.
"It's a moment of great victory," said Mercedes Herrera, a janitor for five years who earns $5.15 an hour. "We all came together, and the union gave us strength. Many of us have never received a raise. I've earned the same ever since I started, so the raise is great."
D. Michael Linihan, the lawyer who negotiated for the Houston Area Service Contractors Association, said the five struck companies — ABM, GCA, OneSource, Pritchard and Sanitors — were pleased to have reached the agreement.
"Throughout this long process," Mr. Linihan said, "we have worked diligently to do two things: one, to protect the interests of our customers, and secondly to ensure that our employees are treated fairly."
The Service Employees International Union's organizing of the janitors last year was hailed by the labor movement as a big victory. Not only was it one of the biggest unionization successes ever in the South, it overcame several other significant hurdles as well: most of the janitors were part-time employees, worked for subcontractors and were immigrants who spoke little English, and many were also illegal immigrants....
anne
November 21, 2006
Cleaning Companies in Accord With Striking Houston Janitors
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
Houston's major cleaning companies and the union representing 5,300 janitors there announced a tentative contract yesterday that ends a monthlong strike, raises the workers' hourly wages by nearly 50 percent over two years and provides them health coverage.
Under the three-year deal, the first for the janitors since they unionized last year, their pay, which now averages $5.25 an hour, will increase to $6.25 on Jan. 1, 2007; to $7.25 on Jan. 1, 2008; and to $7.75 on Jan. 1, 2009.
Further, the employers agreed to increase a janitor's typical shift to six hours a day, from four. Many of the janitors had said they were being given too few hours of work to support their families.
As a result of the rise in both hourly pay and the hours in the workweek, the employees expect to see their paychecks double over the next couple of years.
"It's a moment of great victory," said Mercedes Herrera, a janitor for five years who earns $5.15 an hour. "We all came together, and the union gave us strength. Many of us have never received a raise. I've earned the same ever since I started, so the raise is great."
D. Michael Linihan, the lawyer who negotiated for the Houston Area Service Contractors Association, said the five struck companies — ABM, GCA, OneSource, Pritchard and Sanitors — were pleased to have reached the agreement.
"Throughout this long process," Mr. Linihan said, "we have worked diligently to do two things: one, to protect the interests of our customers, and secondly to ensure that our employees are treated fairly."
The Service Employees International Union's organizing of the janitors last year was hailed by the labor movement as a big victory. Not only was it one of the biggest unionization successes ever in the South, it overcame several other significant hurdles as well: most of the janitors were part-time employees, worked for subcontractors and were immigrants who spoke little English, and many were also illegal immigrants....
anne
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/us/03labor.html?ex=1320210000&en=7e1de42c381db409&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
November 3, 2006
Janitors' Union, Recently Organized, Strikes in Houston
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
Last year, more than 5,000 janitors in Houston decided to form a union, giving organized labor one of its biggest victories ever in the South.
But now the janitors are locked in a new struggle. They have gone on strike because five Houston cleaning companies have rejected their proposal for a salary increase to $8.50 an hour, up from the current average of $5.25 an hour.
The companies say the proposal for a 62 percent increase, along with health insurance, is unrealistic.
The janitors, who generally work four hours a day, say they are merely asking for enough to support their families....
November 3, 2006
Janitors' Union, Recently Organized, Strikes in Houston
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
Last year, more than 5,000 janitors in Houston decided to form a union, giving organized labor one of its biggest victories ever in the South.
But now the janitors are locked in a new struggle. They have gone on strike because five Houston cleaning companies have rejected their proposal for a salary increase to $8.50 an hour, up from the current average of $5.25 an hour.
The companies say the proposal for a 62 percent increase, along with health insurance, is unrealistic.
The janitors, who generally work four hours a day, say they are merely asking for enough to support their families....
Heck, we still do not have even a decent minimum wage through America. We need to try back against decades of Republican anti-union campaigning to get to a reasonable management-worker balance.
anne
By October 2006, more than 100,000 veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan had already been variously granted disability status by the Veterans Administration. Thinking of what has happened in Iraq these 4 years, I cannot imagine how many are the Iraqi disabled. I still have not the slightest idea however why we went to war in and, worse, occupied Iraq. We need to leave Iraq, immediately.anne
Also too controversial for a Democrat to say?
anne
Saturday, March 03, 2007
A good story bylined by John Solomon (and Dan Eggen but that's no surprise)
in The Washington Post
Sounds like a pickup in 2008 to me.
in The Washington Post
One of the complaints came from Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.), who specifically raised concerns with the Justice Department last fall about the performance of then-U.S. Attorney David C. Iglesias of New Mexico, according to administration officials and Domenici's office.
Iglesias has alleged that two unnamed New Mexico lawmakers pressured him in October to speed up the indictments of Democrats before the elections. Domenici has declined to comment on that allegation.
Sounds like a pickup in 2008 to me.
Kevin Drum linked to an interesting old post on Sir Richard Mottram's eloquence and I happened upon this remarkable artifact
I think that Mr Drum should watch the half hour news hour and Prof Reynolds should learn to tell more plausible lies. Actually, I think it is possible that, way back in 2002, conservatives were less mush mouthed than liberals. Trying to defend Bush can sure ruin one's sense of humor, while liberals have a very target rich environment.WANTED: FUNNY LIBERALS....BUT I'M WILLING TO SETTLE FOR MERELY WATCHABLE....Glenn Reynolds says today that a piece by Jack Shafer "does a good job of capturing why I no longer consider myself a leftist, even though not many of my actual positions have changed."
Shafer talks about something that I've wondered about myself for quite a while: why are there so few good liberal commentators? Conservatives tend to be more fun to listen to and to make their arguments more cogently, while liberals either seem unbearably out of touch or else simply unable to make a short, coherent point. This has been true since at least the mid-70s when Shana Alexander was regularly outgunned by James J. Kilpatrick on 60 Minutes' famous Point-Counterpoint segment.
I think liberals have a tougher rhetorical job than conservatives, whose arguments are often fundamentally simpler and more appealing to everyday ideas of "common sense," but that's no excuse. Al Franken managed to write an incisive and funny piece of liberal invective a few years ago; why aren't there more people like him out there?
Brad Squared Digest: My thoughts on the Brad Setser Brad DeLong non debate.
Brad DeLong notes that Brad Setser agrees with Brad DeLong about the risks due to global imbalance and, in particular the fact that Bush is hocking the USA to the people's bank of China.
They agree that the risk is that the PBC will lose a ton of yuan when the dollar tanks. Brad S notes that this might mean that free trade with China will make the Chinese a bit irritated with us when they discover how worthless the paper they bought from us is.
The key quote re-edited
However, I actually am not too worried. When countries currencies tank, the typical reaction is pity not rage. I think the same mental disability that causes people to consider it an unfriendly act for Chinese to work hard for almost nothing making cool stuff for us will cause them to not blame us for letting the dollar tank.
There is a rough historical analogy which I think is closer than the Marshall plan. Back before China was taking over the world, Japan was. In that case as well support for an overvalued dollar was part of the export promotion strategy. My understanding is that this was principally funded by huge Japanese commmercial banks as part of one of those tacit cooperative strategies which were supposed to be so superior to cut throat competition.
Then the dollar tanked and the huge Japanese commercial banks have had unsound balance sheets ever since. Japan's growth locomotive stalled and has remained still on the tracks for over 15 years. Oddly the Japanese don't blame us. Now it is true that a few hundreds of billions blown on t-bills was small potatoes compared to Tokyo real estate. However, we did sell them garbage paper and the Japanese public never noticed.
I figure the Chinese public will never wise up either.
Brad DeLong notes that Brad Setser agrees with Brad DeLong about the risks due to global imbalance and, in particular the fact that Bush is hocking the USA to the people's bank of China.
They agree that the risk is that the PBC will lose a ton of yuan when the dollar tanks. Brad S notes that this might mean that free trade with China will make the Chinese a bit irritated with us when they discover how worthless the paper they bought from us is.
The key quote re-edited
This is a serious concern (especially since Brads agree that China will be a superpower by then). One thing we can do to protect ourselves from their anger is to clearly and repeatedly warn them that their central bank is going to lose big time.But China’s policy of buying dollars (and to a smaller degree euros) also means that China is sinking a growing share of its national wealth into a set of assets that are almost certain to depreciate over time.... The capital losses could destroy the PBoC’s formal capital: borrowing in RMB, even at an artificially low rate, to buy depreciating dollars isn’t a winning financial strategy....
When the time comes for China to realize the losses that are now accumulating quietly on the PBoC’s balance sheet ... I doubt China’s leaders will say, “you know, these losses were really incurred years ago, ... We were the ones who over-paid for US assets.”
I suspect China’s leaders will be somewhat less magnanimous. They will argue that the losses... [stem] from the failure of the US to adopt the policies needed to maintain the value of Chinese investment in the US....
However, I actually am not too worried. When countries currencies tank, the typical reaction is pity not rage. I think the same mental disability that causes people to consider it an unfriendly act for Chinese to work hard for almost nothing making cool stuff for us will cause them to not blame us for letting the dollar tank.
There is a rough historical analogy which I think is closer than the Marshall plan. Back before China was taking over the world, Japan was. In that case as well support for an overvalued dollar was part of the export promotion strategy. My understanding is that this was principally funded by huge Japanese commmercial banks as part of one of those tacit cooperative strategies which were supposed to be so superior to cut throat competition.
Then the dollar tanked and the huge Japanese commercial banks have had unsound balance sheets ever since. Japan's growth locomotive stalled and has remained still on the tracks for over 15 years. Oddly the Japanese don't blame us. Now it is true that a few hundreds of billions blown on t-bills was small potatoes compared to Tokyo real estate. However, we did sell them garbage paper and the Japanese public never noticed.
I figure the Chinese public will never wise up either.
Friday, March 02, 2007
The Waxman Cometh
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Henry Waxman, D-Calif.
ooooooh I do like the sound of that.
Let me type it again
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Henry Waxman, D-Calif.
aahhhhhhhhh
and in news today
"Waxman's staff has confirmed the congressman has issued his first subpoena as a committee chairman this session"
and many morrrrre
The story sounds pretty thermonuclear.
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Henry Waxman, D-Calif.
ooooooh I do like the sound of that.
Let me type it again
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Henry Waxman, D-Calif.
aahhhhhhhhh
and in news today
"Waxman's staff has confirmed the congressman has issued his first subpoena as a committee chairman this session"
and many morrrrre
The story sounds pretty thermonuclear.
Hmmmm I'm not paranoid and don't want to fuel Iran hatred, but do you see anything suspicious about this photograph of the Majlis ? I mean why are 2 of 5 women members covering their upper lips ? Not claiming they have mustaches but, you know, "trust but verify"
My thoughts on the Faux Delong Debate
I have no particular expertise, will do no research and am totally totally biased. The debate is roughly about free trade.
Good snark here.
The de in debate here.
DeLong's latest here.
My comment
I expand. I find it hard to believe that Chinese wages have stagnated for the past ten years, but without checking, I grant the claim for the sake of argument. This does not mean that "[little]of the sacrificing by the American working class through out-sourcing to China trickles down to the poor Chinese workers". A huge increase in the income of the poorer 90% of chinese can occur even if the incomes of the average Chinese manufacturing worker and the average Chinese peasant stay the same as the number of workers increases, since the workers have much higher incomes than the peasants. This is obvious, yet Faux pretends not to understand.
Furthermore, his claim that globalization causes increased inequality conflates two questions -- does globalisation cause an increase in inequality within each nation and does globalisation cause an increase in inequality in the world wide income distribution. A huge increase in the average income in two huge very poor countries (call them India and China) can imply that world inequality decreases even as inequality in each country increases. I think it is clear that globalisation has caused a large increase in ineqality within China, a small increase in inequality in the US and a huge reduction in global inequality.
Faux' claims of fact are not supported by links (maybe I linked to the wrong Faux post). His parody of Brad's quantitative analysis is absolutely dishonest, a lie, an intellectual fraud
"DeLong’s response to my point about the growing class structure in China is to guess that there are 200 rich people in China, whose income, if you divide it among a billion Chinese, doesn’t go all that far. This is supposed to prove that economic classes don’t matter."
This can only be a comment on Brad's actual argument
"Scratching on the back of my envelope, I find that at current exchange rates, China's GDP per worker--and there are 800 million workers--is $3,000 per year. (In 1990 it was $1,100 of today's dollars per year.) According to Piketty and Qian's guesses, the top 0.1% of China's workers get an average of $30,000 per year at current exchange rates. This elite of some 800,000"
Faux' argument rests on the claim that 200 = 800,000. Faux is a liar and a fraud and should not be allowed to pollute a serious debate.
200 != 800,000 is very "simple arithmetic". A fraudulent quote is not acceptable in debate.
Now what is wrong with this guy ? I think his is a case of the politics of resentment . He doesn't like Davos man and he fears the power of super rich Americans, therefore he decides that the right policy is the one they like least. He should debate Katherine Jean-Lopez and not waste Brad Delong's time.
I suppose it is also possible that he is so deeply deeply innumerate that he thinks that almost all of the huge increase in China's income has gone to a few hundred (hundred thousand?) commissars turned capitalists and that 200 is approximately equal to 800,000. I find this possibility so frightening that I prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt and call him a liar.
I have no particular expertise, will do no research and am totally totally biased. The debate is roughly about free trade.
Good snark here.
The de in debate here.
DeLong's latest here.
My comment
Furthermore, his claim that globalization causes increased inequality conflates two questions -- does globalisation cause an increase in inequality within each nation and does globalisation cause an increase in inequality in the world wide income distribution. A huge increase in the average income in two huge very poor countries (call them India and China) can imply that world inequality decreases even as inequality in each country increases. I think it is clear that globalisation has caused a large increase in ineqality within China, a small increase in inequality in the US and a huge reduction in global inequality.
Faux' claims of fact are not supported by links (maybe I linked to the wrong Faux post). His parody of Brad's quantitative analysis is absolutely dishonest, a lie, an intellectual fraud
"DeLong’s response to my point about the growing class structure in China is to guess that there are 200 rich people in China, whose income, if you divide it among a billion Chinese, doesn’t go all that far. This is supposed to prove that economic classes don’t matter."
This can only be a comment on Brad's actual argument
"Scratching on the back of my envelope, I find that at current exchange rates, China's GDP per worker--and there are 800 million workers--is $3,000 per year. (In 1990 it was $1,100 of today's dollars per year.) According to Piketty and Qian's guesses, the top 0.1% of China's workers get an average of $30,000 per year at current exchange rates. This elite of some 800,000"
Faux' argument rests on the claim that 200 = 800,000. Faux is a liar and a fraud and should not be allowed to pollute a serious debate.
200 != 800,000 is very "simple arithmetic". A fraudulent quote is not acceptable in debate.
Now what is wrong with this guy ? I think his is a case of the politics of resentment . He doesn't like Davos man and he fears the power of super rich Americans, therefore he decides that the right policy is the one they like least. He should debate Katherine Jean-Lopez and not waste Brad Delong's time.
I suppose it is also possible that he is so deeply deeply innumerate that he thinks that almost all of the huge increase in China's income has gone to a few hundred (hundred thousand?) commissars turned capitalists and that 200 is approximately equal to 800,000. I find this possibility so frightening that I prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt and call him a liar.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Shorter Glenn Kessler
The intelligence and facts are being fixed around the new policy
The old fact is that Clinton's North Korea policy was a disaster. For the Bush administration, this is (or was ?) pretty much true by definition, but others might want an argument. The argument was that, when Clinton stopped the North Korean Plutonium extraction program cold through "appeasement" (negotatiations) a new hole in the dike popped open, that being a Uranium enrichment program. Now that Bush administration firmness has resulted in North Korea extracting enough Plutonium for roughly a dozen nuclear bombs, making at least one and testing one, the Bush administration has decided to return to the Clinton policy.
Therefore new facts are needed. Therefore, there is no longer a North Korean Uranium enrichment program.
There might or might not be a North Korean Uranium enrichment program. However, it is very clear that the Bush administration will do nothing about it that the Clinton administration had not already done (read nothing). Thus the only conceivable advantage of the Bush approach is based on a fact which has been liquidated. The only difference between the results of the Clinton policy and the Bush policy is some dozens of kilograms of purified Plutonium and at least one atomic bomb.
The one argument used by the Bush administration for the past 5 years against Clinton era policies is, in Ron Zeiglar's immortal words, inoperative.
Update.
Around the left blogosphere, the general interpretation appears to be that the old intelligence (built around the old policy) was bogus, but the new interpretation is valid, that is that North Korea never had much of a Uranium enrichment program. I don't notice many others suspecting the zag as much as the zig.
I see hints of the suspicion in the New York Times article by David Sanger and William Broad
Now what chance do you think there is that they will determine that there is such a program (as they did in 2002) ?
Also note who started reassessing the intelligence "One former official said that it was Ms. Rice, in a meeting at the C.I.A. in 2004, who encouraged intelligence officials to soften their assessments of how quickly the North Koreans could produce weapons-usable uranium." hmm I wonder why.
Now I have no particular guess about the intelligence or about North Korean Uranium enrichment programs. However, I do think that it is clear that we learn nothing about either from the Bush administration whether on record or leaking to the Wapo and the NY Times.
In 2002, they said the Clinton negotiated agreed framework was no good and that intelligence proved that North Korea had a major Uranium enrichment program, now they have realised it is the best deal they can get (not counting a dozen or so atom bombs) so, barring further evidence which will be brought out on flying pigs, nothing needs to be done about the possible Uranium program. The official line has changed. Nothing can be inferred about anything in North Korea.
Update: Kevind Drum notes that "Fred Kaplan (unsurprisingly) picks up on something [I] Drum missed about our intelligence turnaround on North Korea's uranium enrichment
program:" I am flattered (even though Drum did not link to me).
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Shorter Glenn Kessler The intelligence and facts ...":
http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/070305fa_fact_hersh
February 25, 2007
The Redirection
By SEYMOUR M. HERSH
Is the Administration's new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?
A STRATEGIC SHIFT
In the past few months, as the situation in Iraq has deteriorated, the Bush Administration, in both its public diplomacy and its covert operations, has significantly shifted its Middle East strategy. The "redirection," as some inside the White House have called the new strategy, has brought the United States closer to an open confrontation with Iran and, in parts of the region, propelled it into a widening sectarian conflict between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.
To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia's government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda....
anne
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Shorter Glenn Kessler The intelligence and facts ...":
http://www.walrusmagazine.com/print/history-bombs-over-cambodia/
February 25, 2007
Bombs Over Cambodia: New information reveals that Cambodia was bombed far more heavily than previously believed.
By Taylor Owen and Ben Kiernan
In the fall of 2000, twenty-five years after the end of the war in Indochina, Bill Clinton became the first US president since Richard Nixon to visit Vietnam. While media coverage of the trip was dominated by talk of some two thousand US soldiers still classified as missing in action, a small act of great historical importance went almost unnoticed. As a humanitarian gesture, Clinton released extensive Air Force data on all American bombings of Indochina between 1964 and 1975. Recorded using a groundbreaking IBM-designed system, the database provided extensive information on sorties conducted over Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. Clinton's gift was intended to assist in the search for unexploded ordnance left behind during the carpet bombing of the region. Littering the countryside, often submerged under farmland, this ordnance remains a significant humanitarian concern. It has maimed and killed farmers, and rendered valuable land all but unusable. Development and demining organizations have put the Air Force data to good use over the past six years, but have done so without noting its full implications, which turn out to be staggering....
anne
The intelligence and facts are being fixed around the new policy
The old fact is that Clinton's North Korea policy was a disaster. For the Bush administration, this is (or was ?) pretty much true by definition, but others might want an argument. The argument was that, when Clinton stopped the North Korean Plutonium extraction program cold through "appeasement" (negotatiations) a new hole in the dike popped open, that being a Uranium enrichment program. Now that Bush administration firmness has resulted in North Korea extracting enough Plutonium for roughly a dozen nuclear bombs, making at least one and testing one, the Bush administration has decided to return to the Clinton policy.
Therefore new facts are needed. Therefore, there is no longer a North Korean Uranium enrichment program.
There might or might not be a North Korean Uranium enrichment program. However, it is very clear that the Bush administration will do nothing about it that the Clinton administration had not already done (read nothing). Thus the only conceivable advantage of the Bush approach is based on a fact which has been liquidated. The only difference between the results of the Clinton policy and the Bush policy is some dozens of kilograms of purified Plutonium and at least one atomic bomb.
The one argument used by the Bush administration for the past 5 years against Clinton era policies is, in Ron Zeiglar's immortal words, inoperative.
Update.
Around the left blogosphere, the general interpretation appears to be that the old intelligence (built around the old policy) was bogus, but the new interpretation is valid, that is that North Korea never had much of a Uranium enrichment program. I don't notice many others suspecting the zag as much as the zig.
I see hints of the suspicion in the New York Times article by David Sanger and William Broad
But the doubts were on full display on Wednesday, when Christopher R. Hill, the chief American negotiator with North Korea, testified on Capitol Hill. “If we determine that there is a program, it’s got to go,” Mr. Hill said, words that were far more tentative than American policy makers have used about the program in the past. Expressing his resolve to get to the bottom of the mystery, he added: “We cannot have a situation where we — you know, they pretend to disarm and we pretend to believe them. We need to run this into the ground.” He said that while there was no doubt that North Korea had bought centrifuges from Abdul Qadeer Khan, the rogue Pakistani engineer, there was doubt about “how far they’ve gotten.”Hmmm we certainly cannot have such a situtation can we. I mean it sure looks like such a situation. Ignore the man behind the curtain.
Now what chance do you think there is that they will determine that there is such a program (as they did in 2002) ?
Also note who started reassessing the intelligence "One former official said that it was Ms. Rice, in a meeting at the C.I.A. in 2004, who encouraged intelligence officials to soften their assessments of how quickly the North Koreans could produce weapons-usable uranium." hmm I wonder why.
Now I have no particular guess about the intelligence or about North Korean Uranium enrichment programs. However, I do think that it is clear that we learn nothing about either from the Bush administration whether on record or leaking to the Wapo and the NY Times.
In 2002, they said the Clinton negotiated agreed framework was no good and that intelligence proved that North Korea had a major Uranium enrichment program, now they have realised it is the best deal they can get (not counting a dozen or so atom bombs) so, barring further evidence which will be brought out on flying pigs, nothing needs to be done about the possible Uranium program. The official line has changed. Nothing can be inferred about anything in North Korea.
Update: Kevind Drum notes that "Fred Kaplan (unsurprisingly) picks up on something [I] Drum missed about our intelligence turnaround on North Korea's uranium enrichment
program:" I am flattered (even though Drum did not link to me).
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Shorter Glenn Kessler The intelligence and facts ...":
http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/070305fa_fact_hersh
February 25, 2007
The Redirection
By SEYMOUR M. HERSH
Is the Administration's new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?
A STRATEGIC SHIFT
In the past few months, as the situation in Iraq has deteriorated, the Bush Administration, in both its public diplomacy and its covert operations, has significantly shifted its Middle East strategy. The "redirection," as some inside the White House have called the new strategy, has brought the United States closer to an open confrontation with Iran and, in parts of the region, propelled it into a widening sectarian conflict between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.
To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia's government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda....
anne
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Shorter Glenn Kessler The intelligence and facts ...":
http://www.walrusmagazine.com/print/history-bombs-over-cambodia/
February 25, 2007
Bombs Over Cambodia: New information reveals that Cambodia was bombed far more heavily than previously believed.
By Taylor Owen and Ben Kiernan
In the fall of 2000, twenty-five years after the end of the war in Indochina, Bill Clinton became the first US president since Richard Nixon to visit Vietnam. While media coverage of the trip was dominated by talk of some two thousand US soldiers still classified as missing in action, a small act of great historical importance went almost unnoticed. As a humanitarian gesture, Clinton released extensive Air Force data on all American bombings of Indochina between 1964 and 1975. Recorded using a groundbreaking IBM-designed system, the database provided extensive information on sorties conducted over Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. Clinton's gift was intended to assist in the search for unexploded ordnance left behind during the carpet bombing of the region. Littering the countryside, often submerged under farmland, this ordnance remains a significant humanitarian concern. It has maimed and killed farmers, and rendered valuable land all but unusable. Development and demining organizations have put the Air Force data to good use over the past six years, but have done so without noting its full implications, which turn out to be staggering....
anne
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)