The Politics of Collapse

When it comes to the federal housing agencies and the housing policies that they facilitated, Bush mainly followed the example Clinton set with a bit more vigor. However intensively the republicans spin this, it will be seen as another failure for Bush and the party he has done so much to discredit.

If Obama can't win under these circumstances (unpopular wars, stagnant economy, worst financial crisis since Great Depression, housing collapse, unpopular republican president, superannuated opponent matched with neophyte assistant opponent), McCain will still find himself confronted with a Congress heavily stacked against him on most policies.

Big Brother's Pain

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/17/magazine/17pain-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Populists often complain that the government fails to exercise sufficient control over the people. Here I present a counter-example, an instance, among many, in which the government exercises altogether too much control and exercises it badly (that is, with a combination of stupidity and brutality). Also, the article itself is of such a quality that I should be inclined to include it in a nonfiction anthology, if I were to edit such a thing.   One striking aspect of this problem is that even such a powerful, and relatively intelligent and educated, constituency as doctors seems unable to reign in these vicious governmental incursions into their territory. I suspect this is partly due to the generally cavalier attitude of the "macho" medical establishment toward the problem of pain. The projected "machismo", of course, is laughable--and, fortunately, this superficial posturing may gradually fade as the female of the species overruns the profession. These doctors are cowardly conformists bowing to the half-wits who run the DEA and the quasi-fascist prosecutors who prefer to risk sending innocent men to prison rather than risk allowing guilty men to remain free.   I think this article makes it clear that much of the mismanagement of pain in this country is due to ignorance and prejudice. But, the government should not be in the business of managing pain in the first place. I think bureaucratic or judicial determination of the appropriate amount of pain a person should be forced to live with is far outside the bounds of government's proper sphere of action. The state should interfere only when someone inflicts harm upon another--not when (as in the case of a drug user) he might be inflicting harm upon himself. It is this type of tyrannical brutality that invites and justifies the existence of the black market, the mafias, the corrupt officials, and all the other people and organizations that effectively resist or subvert the government. The only thing that causes me to hesitate in my advocacy for this degree of liberty: the possibility that the sober part of the population will be burdened by the possible overbreeding of the heavy users (though I am not aware of evidence that this group is especially prone to procreation).

Bush and Obama

Apparently Bush recently adopted a new strategy that involves attacking targets in the Tribal Areas without Pakistani permission. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/washington/11policy.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin Didn't Obama get hammered by the right a few months ago for saying that he would do just this? I believe he said that he would attack a known Al Qaeda meeting in Pakistan even if the Pakistanis declined to approve the attack. Am I missing something here? These Tribal Areas seem analogous to N. Vietnam, with Pakistani military and intel leaders acting as China did in the Vietnam war. Both would be difficult to conquer by invasion, due to guerrilla activity and a landscape that supports such activity. Of course, the fact that the Tribal Areas are a part of Pakistan makes them even more problematic than N. Vietnam was. An invasion would surely provoke further support for the guerrillas by their state backers or even a direct confrontation with that state. But, without an invasion the cross-border attacks continue indefinitely and threaten the stability of their target. Unfortunately, American operations in the Tribal Areas will probably turn the Pakistani people against us and could destabilize Pakistan.

More Paternalism

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/09/us/09salvia.html?hp Salvia is a natural hallucinogen that causes intense psychedelic experience that lasts for 5 minutes. Florida recently made possession or sale of it a felony with a maximum prison term of 15 years. This really enters upon the territory of tyrannical overreach. It is insanely disproportionate to any threat to the citizenry--there's no evidence that anyone in Florida has ever harmed himself or anyone else under influence of this plant. It is not even considered addictive. The only hope of keeping it legal is to tax it promptly to give government a stake in its continued availability. This is why the legality of alcohol and tobacco are not threatened (despite the fact that they are far more deadly to their users and to non-users in proximity to users than salvia or marijuana). This illegalizing fetish of our governments is symbolic: it is one of many strategies employed to chip away, bit by bit, at liberty. We are ever more overwatched, regulated, classified, tracked, lied to, protected from ourselves, infantilized.   I've always been inclined to Jefferson's view: the tree of liberty must be fertilized per occasion with the blood of tyrants and patriots. Tyranny waxes all ways. The tree desiccates. Blood is wanted.

Republican Prospects

This is an analysis by an author at a conservative think tank. Basically, he explains how the Bush cabal has succeeded in shrinking and perverting the Republican party--also how his malign influence can be reversed in future. A cogent analysis I think, though he skips a few important issues and seems to underestimate the difficulty of bringing medical costs under control by any means short of draconian nationalization.     http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/magazine/07Inequality-t.html?em

100% Hybrid by 2020

This is a study by IBM in consultation with all the major car makers that concluded all new cars sold in 2020 will be, at least to some degree, hybridized. Also, they predict that 88% of the average vehicle will by then be recycled because automakers are taking the recycling priority into account when designing new vehicles so that they are cheaper to recycle. http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/08/study-all-new-v.html

Interesting Social Proposal

http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.24092/pub_detail.asp This may not be an ideal solution, but the principles from which he derives his proposals are sound and it's far better than persisting with the status quo. This is what the Republicans should have been doing during the Bush administration on the domestic front--instead of inventing a new Medicare handout and letting a bunch of feminists pursue a Title IX inquisition into our best university science and engineering programs.

A Good Bush Policy

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/13/AR2008071301723.html I proposed this policy in my law school thesis as an important way of getting the developing world on board to achieve climate change mitigation. It should capture a lot of low-hanging fruit (ie, cheap ways to reduce emissions) and encourage a more conscious environmental ethos among third-world governments and businesses. Though modest in size and impact, it would at least make a good start in this area of mitigation. But, more important is the potential for it to create positive momentum on a number of levels: the sense of international equity, economic structure, technological dispersion, efficient allocation of emissions reductions.

Iran, Israel, America: A Lovers' Quarrel

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/18/opinion/18morris.html

This is a fairly plausible take on the situation as far as I can tell (lacking all the information on Iranian and Israeli capabilities). The qualification that occurs to me is that even Israeli nuclear strikes might fail to stop the Iranian program, unless the Israelis have adequate intelligence to work with on the key locations of the program. Perhaps the gravest threat posed by Iran’s strategy of nuclear escalation is the first strike incentive each side will perceive once the Iranians go nuclear.

Mossad clearly has the "advantage" of operating under a pressure of necessity that our intelligence services do not experience. They have long known, not just in an abstract sense, but in an absolutely visceral sense with whom they have to deal. I willingly grant that Mossad is more intelligent, superior technologially, more experienced, and, when required, just as ruthless as their foes--hell, they're ruthless enough to spy on us. But, Mossad also played a low-profile, and not particularly commendable, role in the intelligence gathering and analysis that led to the Iraq war. Their intel was wrong: Saddam bluffed the Israelis along with the rest of the world. Yet now they are expected not only to know the status of the Iranian nuclear program, but also to have precise information on its multiple locations, the defensive precautions at each location, the key operatives of the program, etc? This much I do not believe. Nor do I deem it inconceivable that they may find themselves in the position of knowing so little of the program as to render an attack counterproductive. Short of a major nuclear strike, I think the Israelis could delay the program for a few years at best. Given this, perhaps the most probable scenario is an Israeli strike (of limited efficacy) followed by Iranian counterstrikes that would enable the U.S. to sell, for purposes of international PR, its immediate intervention as a defensive measure provoked by Iran. This would give us some diplomatic cover, while ensuring that the Iranian program suffers a more serious setback than the Israelis could inflict themselves. To achieve more than a setback would necessitate regime change at a minimum, possibly a full-blown, old-school occupation (see WWII, multi-year occupations of Germany and Japan).

Israel and Problems

In a recent speech to AIPAC, the highly influential Israel lobbying group in America, Obama said, "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided." Shortly thereafter he said to Fareed Zakaria:  "I think the Clinton formulation provides a starting point for discussions between the parties." The Clinton plan was for a divided Jerusalem. He said he wasn't sufficiently careful with his syntax on the prior occasion.

Making a divided Jerusalem the starting point of negotiations is clearly disadvantageous to the Israelis, and they are much mispleased with this aboutface. Clinton's starting point was more pro-Israel in 2000. Of course, the Israelis would prefer to propose a solution in which they derive all the benefits--but the Palestinians will never (and should never) concede all points. The outcome of negotiation is failure or compromise--neither side dictates except by imposition of simple force. Obama probably could not do worse than any preceding President; each left office with this issue unresolved.

The Israelis get away with playing an evil game, such as we would be most reluctant to countenance in any other ally, by using the excuse that their adversary is still more brutal.

The assumption that Israel is the white knight facing off against the Muslim devils is foolish and grossly oversimplified. Israel established its independence by means of terrorism, butchery, brutality, deviousness, and many other less than lovely qualities. Today the West Bank is pockmarked with innumerable Jewish settlements scattered all over a territory to which they have no legal claim. This is simply an ostentatious and unnecessary provocation of the Palestinians and their supporters. It is the "might makes right" philosophy in action. There is little underlying moral difference between the two religions: both are essentially tribalistic in outlook and espouse "eye for an eye" moral codes. The difference arises instead from cultural history and present circumstances. In particular, the Jews have had benefit of exposure to Western ideas for centuries, have understood and largely absorbed the Western tradition (and were in fact contributors to this intellectual background), whereas the Muslims have only a despotic political tradition and no civil society per se, just the overweening religious structures. Finally, as the weaker party in the power relation, the Muslims have been driven to more desperate measures (overt terrorism) to persuade the Israelis that they still have some power and some basis for leverage at the negotiating table.

The American-Israeli relationship is not a fair deal for the U.S. It never was, nor is it today. Their efforts to make peace with their neighbors have been insufficient--and we have borne a substantial portion of the costs created by their foreign policies. Salting Palestinian wounds by planting settlements all over the West Bank is not excused by the madness of Hamas.

They ought to keep in mind that without us Israel would be a radioactive desert within 20 years.