Kindergarteners pose grave threat to Palestinians

Hamas’ military wing, Izzadin Al-Kassam launched four rockets toward a kindergarten in Sderot. See LGF for the whole story.

Ladies and Gentlemen

Dennis Prager discussed the dicotomy between male nature and being a man today. Along the way, Dennis and callers raised the question of female nature and being ladylike as well as the term ladies and gentlemen. Ladies and gentlemen refers to an aristocratic code for behavior, which Americans had largely but not completely abandon in the Jacksonian era. There are reasons for class distinction to reinforce the presence of aristocratic behavior, and there was the continuing European influence on American society. Nevertheless, Americans had come to understand the proper conduct of their own elite without having to create new words for all of this.

During the 60's, the kind of artificial behavior which had survived the Jacksonians, was condemned in favor of authentic behavior. The reformers of the 60's, who did like to engage in Orwellian re-naming, are the one's responsible for abolishing "ladies and gentlemen". Feminists may have had a grudge against "ladies" because they needed to both destroy the alternate model of aristocratic women's power as well as the boundaries the aristocratic model created between men and women, but it is the conjunction of feminists and the push for informality in society that is responsible here.

Thoughts on Realism

Saw Kissenger on one of the Fox shows arguing that security and stability should be the priority of all wise statesmen. He was asked about Iraq, and just applied his old formula. I contend that Realism made more sense during the Cold War than it makes today. During the Cold War, where the Soviets were eager to exploit insecurity and instability in places like Greece, Turkey, Korea, and Iran from the very begining, to their development of a policy of fomenting communist revolution throughout the third world, it was critical to keep anti-communist governments stable and secure, lest the state be lost like China, Cuba, or Mozambique.

Today, there is no Soviet Union pushing communist insurgencies. While it can be argued that Islamofascism is a threat in Jordan, Moracco, and Turkey, some realism might be called for. This is why the Russians were given a pass in Chechnya, and why Pakistan's government was brought back into the fold. But the more potent force in the long term is democracy. So Kissenger is wrong to prioritize security and stability in all times and places. Some instability is neccesary to bring about democracy. Whether its American intervention in Iraq or covert support for democrats in Iran, a certain amount of instability can yield much greater dividends. We need to have a set of conflicting values, embracing democracy and stability. Where democracy isn't likely, and where the democracies of the world are unlikely to stay involved for the long term, like Sudan, then stability and security means stopping the genocide. Where it is possible and/or where the democracies will commit for the long term, the status quo is a problem.

The Heroic view of Politicians

Richard Engel, writing an essay at MSNBC, starts off with this:

"A Iraqi friend recently asked, "Are the Americans so smart that they have a plan for Iraq that's so complicated that I don't understand it, or are they so stupid that they have no plan at all?" After a paragraph of explanation, the iraqi replied, "My Iraqi friend refused to believe it, insisting that the United States must have a secret, genius plan to serve its long-term interests in the Middle East. "If America weren't clever, how could it be a great power?" he asked rhetorically."

This is the heroic view of politicians. They are bigger, stronger, smarter, better looking, and in all other regards better than regular people. That is why they rule. The alternative, democratic theory of government, is that politicians govern because regular folks selected them. The two theories are not entirely mutually exclusive. There is plenty of evidence that its an electoral advantage to be better looking, taller, appear more fit, and there is substantial evidence that voters need to believe their elected leaders are healthy. This is the remaining heroicism of our electoral politics. TV appeals to the heroic, and so undermines the final squashing of heroic values in politics. In a democracy, there is no reason to assume that politicians are bigger, better, stronger, smarter, or like Achilles and Herakles, close to the gods than we common men. The fact that so many people actually continue to hope that our leaders will be heroes (supermen) may explain some of the hatred for Bush, who appears (other than his remarkable fitness) to be the very opposite of the heroic figure. If one's complaints about Bush focus on his inability to garner the popular vote, one is making a democratic argument. If one's complaints about Bush focus on his speech, his intelligence, his appearance, one is making a heroic argument.

I say all this about our own society, and we have had democracy in one form or another in America since Jamestown and Plymouth. Iraq has been under the rule or monarchs or dictators that explicitly made heroic claims to governance since the mudbricks were piled into cities at Ur and Uruk. I am not saying that bringing democracy is impossible in Iraq, I am just pointing out an obstacle that needs to be overcome.

Growing up Tory

Interesting book excerpt or summary of the work by Jo-Anne Nadler, Too Nice to be a Tory: It's My Party and I'll Cry If I Want To. Its hard to tell what it is, but its written in the first person.

Tories full ahead for School Choice!

"Parents will be able to send their children to any school - state or independent - under a Conservative government, Michael Howard has said." So reports the Independent today. "By giving parents real choice and teachers real freedom success should flourish and failure should wither away." Let's hear it for Michael Howard. As the line goes, read the whole thing.

Keegen critiques Neocons

In the Telegraph this morning, John Keegan offers a solid Realist crtique of the Neoconservatives. I would quibble with his division of the ideological sphere into the religious and the political, but I'll leave it at that.

The Rostra

I bumped into a new blog, the Rostra. Its full of all kinds of classical goodness, and so warms my heart. It does seem a bit tilted to the Platonic, but I'll forgive that as any classicism in this modern world is better than no classicism. I'll certainly be checking in from time to time.

Canadian Elections

Following the link on Instapundit, the Grand Forks Herlad is running this AP story on the Canadian elections. Its a dissapointment that the Liberals have hung on to power, even if it is a minority government. I'll be looking for maps of the voting results as well as statements about and changes in the approach to America.

If I were Emperor of Education...

Jay Mathews of the Washington Post ran an essay by Richard Chapleau on the subject, "If I Were Emperor of Education." I came across links to it at Highered Intelligence, where I also learned that Chris O'Donnell was challenging his readers to offer their own answers to the question.

And so I go, If I were Emperor of Education

I would let the market reign. Rather than a government solution of mass proportions (like mass transit, mass media, mass production, and weapons of mass destruction all products of the modern age) involving standardized curricula, standardized testing, standardized teacher preperation, and stadard textbooks (another feature of the modern age) I would embrace the post-modern possibilities of markets to liberate individual choice. Away with the model of schools designed to suit the age of coal and iron.

Anyone should be able to start a school and see who sends their children. People could form schools to any purpose using any methods, parents will choose to send their children to the school that appeals to them the most. I have no doubt that the best possible results will be achieved when competative pressures are applied to education as they are to the sale of other goods and services.

Canadian Elections

There are elections comming up in the great white north on Monday, the 28th. There is a nice roundup on the subject at the Spectator.

Recenty, I observed that the future of many elections in the world will involve one party tacking pro-American (as in United States of) and the other party tacking against. To a certain degree it has always been so. But where in the past, the less American party premiced itself on "where with America, but..." now in the absence of the Soviet threat, there is no need for this prepratory clause. As I refer to earlier, I disgaree somewhat with VDH on his assessment that Europe is no longer an ally. I look back and see resistance in Europe during the Cold War by parties of the left, and by France on a range of issues. Without the Cold War, this division will become more obvious and more serious. For that reason alone, keeping an eye on foriegn elections will be an important duty for the aware citizen.

The Spectator article mentions a website Canadian Ally dot com which makes the case that Canada is not France. In many ways, this is part of the divide between Quebec and Western Canada as much as it is between left and right. Its easy to look at the government of countries like Canada and Germany and see problems, just as it appeared that Spain was with us before the Madrid attacks. But the Candian right and Western Canada in general are always more sympathetic to notions of "free trade, individual liberty, and military might" and they always are, even when governments of the left get to do the talking.

What's up with the beheadings?

I continue to hear talking heads on the tube suggest that the purpose of the beheadings is to intimidate the West. Its certainly possible that the terrorists might hope for a collapse of western resolve as happened in Spain. But I think they are aware that for the most part, these acts will stiffen resolve. Rather, like Belmont Club, I think that these beheadings are aimed at a different audience: the Islamic world. This makes these attacks more insidious.

What is the deal with détente?

I've seen a lot of slamming of détente going on in the reflections on the Reagan presidency. Most of these commit the error of lumping Nixonian and Carterian détente together. For Nixon, détente was a strategy to ease tensions, to send both boxers back to their corners for a drink of water and removal of blood about the face. In the declining days of Vietnam, America needed a return to the corner in order to come back out into the ring refreshed.

For Carter, détente was an abidcation of the ring, an attempt to abandon the match, hopefull that a draw could be arranged.

But imagine, if you will, along with me. We know that Ford was staging a strong comeback at the end of the 1976 election, and some speculate that if the campaign lasted another two weeks he could have won. So let's suppose that he did. Let's look at his foriegn policy cabinet for his first full term. Let's assume that At some point, Kissenger is replaced by Haig in the new administration. Its unlikely that the old hand of Kissenger would be disirable in a Ford administration elected in its own right. Haig had been made NATO Commander by Ford, so appointment to State is reasonable. This allows us to draw on Haig's subsequent tenure from 1980-82 as a guide to his action. Donald Rumsfeld was made Secretary of Defence in 1975. Let's keep him on. Now the question is, would a Ford, Haig, Rumsfeld team have given away the arms control store, responded to by Afghanistan by quitting the Olympics, and failed to back the modernist Shah against the Islamic fundamentalists?

A Ford, Haig, Rumsfeld team would certainly have made mistakes (being falible humans) but its hard to imagine that one of two outcomes would have been achived. 1) The Soviets would have been contained by the certainty that the Americans would respond forcefully or 2) the more probable case, the Americans would have argued that the Soviets cast aside détente and would not have been constrained by it in their reactions to Soviet support for terrorism, its arms control violations, and the invasion of Afghanistan.

The purpose of this little experiment is to suggest that détente didn't have to mean a Carter foriegn policy. While its certainly true that once we assume a Carter foriegn polciy, Reagan is the solution, that is not the same thing as a blanket condemnation of détente. Indeed in many regards, Reagan's actions were based on restoring the earlier détente, as reflected in his arms control agreements and many meetings with Gorbachov.

Trouble for the Social Democrats?

Two items struck me in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung this morning. Both represent trouble for the Social Democrats. One item is the discontent on the Left with Schröder's Agenda 2010 reforms. These reforms, like those of Blair and Clinton, have attempted to use market solutions and some withdrawal from the nanny state with the purpose of making the remaining social programs, stronger, more robust, and more effective. Rather that seeking to reduce these programs because they are bad, Agenda 2010 seeks to improve their viability in the face of climbing costs. The left rejects this position and advocates higher taxes and more programs. A splinter group has been talking about the possibility of an alternative party since March. The recently met at Berlin's Humboldt University, and plan to assemble a platform in the next month. By the end of the year they plan to have some plans about whether to go ahead with the formation of a new party. This opinion piece on the problem is not optimistic.

The second item is the rise of the Green Party at the expence of the Social Democrats. The support for the Greens has nearly doubled in the past five years, and in Berlin, the Greens outpolled the SDP. The Greens themselves think they have become mainstream, and that may be true, but in light of the above article, its also just as likely that the Social Democrats are hemoraging leftist voters to the Greens. In America's winner take all system, a third way politician could succeed by holding on to their base on the left while attracting swing and centrist voters by moving to the right. In a multiparty parliamentary system, voters can more easily shift to the party next over to the left. In the American system, the appearance of a party even more leftist than the Democrats, such as Nader in 2000, siphons off voters handing the election to the Right. In a parliamentary system the SDP could still govern through a coallition government of the left, but would be forced to make concessions to the allied parties, effectively pulling the center of gravity of the Chancellor's policy closer to the majority of voters. One way to accomplish this is to reorganize the cabinet.

An interesting side note, is that the FAZ reports that one alternative explanation for the Greens success at the expence of the SDP is that the Green's cabinet possitions, the foreign, consumer, and enviromental portfolios, have nothing to do with the domestic cuts involved in Agenda 2010.

In American politics, the political cost of such reforms as welfare and social security reform typically require the appearance of bipartisanship to avoid these effects. With two parties its possible to arrange the crossover votes, the photo ops, and the other trappings of bipartisanship. With a dozen parties, there will always be someone willing to attack the government and collect the votes againts any unpopular reforms, no matter how neccesary. Social Security reform, traditionally the third rail of American politics, has been known to occupy this place. The Agenda 2010 involves Germans in many of the same problems in allocating benefits and costs of its generous social welfare programs.

Travel Safety

There was a nice Explainer in Slate last April on fatality risk of air and rail travel. As any regular readers might have guessed, I am doing some analysis of transportation on a variety of criteria this summer. More will be forthcomming.

What is Iran up to?

John Keegan has a nice piece in the Telegraph on the causes of the current spat (the British patrol boat incident) and the more general problems Iran poses. This line may well be telling:

"An optimistic Western assessment is that its young people reject its religious government and would welcome liberation from the ayatollahs. A more realistic judgment is that, while Iranian youth seeks liberation, it does so within an Islamic context." And, "National pride will encourage the Iranians to become a nuclear power. Western efforts to prevent it doing so risk being counterproductive."

The Telegraph also has an editorial in which they urge Blair to abandon the policy of rapprochement, coordinated with France and Germany, and shift toward the American position.

Finding the Telegraph a much better review of Iranian affairs, I continue. Granted their men are being held there, but this next story is about the Iranian bomb. I will add here that when a country has this kind of an experience as the British have just had with their soldiers, its revealing of how things really are. Unlike the nice words which the diplomats pour so sweetly, these kinds of incidents are telling. Boris Johnson relates some of his experiences with the Iranian ambassador to Britain. He observes, "In deciding whether a country is suitable to wield nuclear weapons, you may think that its promotion of suicide bombers is not an encouraging sign." So when he asks, "on what grounds, exactly, should one country - no matter how powerful - be able to prohibit another sovereign state from acquiring a weapon that the government of that country may desire?" His answer is, " as soon as they have a full and functioning democracy, they can have the bomb that goes with it."

The Guardian, on the other hand, suggests the possibility of, "a grovelling apology from Britain."

More of its not quite democracy in Europe

In March, I mentioned that Europe would be governed in practice by the big states, not by a democratic principle of one man one vote. French finance minister Nicolas Sarkozy has come out saying that this should be done. He identifies six states: France, Germany, the UK, Spain, Italy and Poland. Interestingly, he's the inclusive fellow on this issue. Jacques Chirac would prefer to do things by having France and Germany bully the rest of Europe. Yesterday, Mark Steyn took up the issue of European federalism in his Telegraph article, "Vote No". And why not. Also in the Telegraph was news that Germany, though their spokesman, Bela Anda, "joined France to insist that Britain and other "non-core" countries should be barred from proposing candidates for president of the European Commission."

Its clear that part of this was aimed at torpedoing the candidacy of Chris Patten, who is reported to have said, "Even though I had a lot of support, a couple of the bigger member states said 'nul points'." But still more, France and Germany seek to "control the EU machinery despite being part of a minority group within the enlarged bloc of 25 states." [again quoting from the Telegraph]

Britain is not pleased, and Jack Straw certainly seems less than thrilled. He pointed out that the reading of the constitution allows the president of the commission to come from any member states. But, as they say, some animals are more equal than others. France and Germany would prefer to impose Belgium's federalist prime minister, Guy Verhofstadt on the EU. He was an advocate of building an extra-NATO European army, which is the kind of instrument that Euro-nationalists could use to posit Europe as a rival of America on the world stage.

I'll offer an aside here, because often George Bush is accused of taking needless steps which have antagonized allies, friendly neutrals, and fair weather friends. What kind of step is it to talk seriously about creating such an army? Or supporting someone who does for a top Euro position? Europe is not about to start cutting into its generous social benefits to provide the kind of military spending necessary to pose a real challenge to America. So such a move carries all the downsides of antagonism without any of the upsides of independent policy. Those who are dubious about American policy might wish that Europe could act as a check on American "excess", but such a policy is both costly in terms of political relations with America as well as costing money which European voters would rather spend on their army of bureaucrats. So rather than being a serious challenge, its just a pointless annoyance. Do not believe those who claim that it is Bush who has breached the relationship with "friends". While Bush has done provocative things, he has backed up his policies. For all the disruption, Saddam is gone and Iraq has an opportunity to lead the Arab world into modernity. Whether you think that advances the War on Terror or was a distraction from it, its a real accomplishment. Guy Verhofstadt and his Euro-Army are just provocative disruption without anything to show for it.

France and Germany want the rest of Europe to "keep quiet". The debate is one of whether France and Germany have the ability to govern Europe alone, or, as Nicolas Sarkozy suggests, France and Germany don't have the power to do it. He has pointed to the failure of the Franco-Germans to push through Verhofstadt. But a "big six" is the same game of big state domination over small states. It may be more diverse, and so more capable of imposing its will on Europe, but its still fundamentally at odds with democratic principles.

As I wrote in March, American federalism used a bicameral system to prevent the large states from becoming dominant. The Senate gives equal weight to all states, and thereby prevents the large states from being able to manage policy for the whole country. Europe ought really to regard America as a model in this regard, among others.

Steyn makes the point that this attempt to hold all the power is doomed to fail. "America is the exception that proves the rule, because it's a highly decentralised federation. [...] If America were as centrally governed as France, it would break up. Yet that, in a nutshell, is what the new Europe will be: a jurisdiction the size of America, but as centralised as France." What's ultimately compelling about Steyn's piece (other than the prose, which is always a delight) is that he crafts an argument for both friends of the individual nation states and for a federal Europe. Its rather obvious that the friends of the nation state would oppose the new forms, but given that "the only pan-European state on offer is doomed to fail," friends of the very idea of pan-Europeanism are well advised to nix this offer and hold out for something better.

Iraq/Al Queda Connection

I haven't blogged on this because such nice work was being done elsewhere. Here is an excellent example at Evangelical Outpost.

Fatah bears full responsibility

Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, David Bernstein, quotes the following from Palastinian Authority prime minister Qurei: "We have clearly declared that the Aksa Martyrs Brigades are part of Fatah." "We are committed to them and Fatah bears full responsibility for the group."

Qurei gets no disagreement here.

We realized that we had all been duped

Prof Baimbridge has the corporate law analysis of Air America's implosion. See the WSJ/AP article here. There were apparently sales of assets while debt was being contracted, and now default looms. That sets up credit fraud. Investors were defrauded as well, who had been told that the amount already raised was closer to $30 million, and now it appears to be $6 million.

Euro Center Right looks to Patton

As the EUObserver reports, Jean-Claude Juncker, the favorite of the center right has opted not to leave the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg, so The UK's Chris Patten will carry the mantle of the European People's Party. Silvio Berlusconi nominated Patton. Elmar Brok, a German Christian Democrat MEP, says Patten, "enjoys great popularity in the Parliament". Patton is currently the EU's external relations commissioner. It will be interesting so see how he fairs.

German Opposition eyes 2/3's majority

Christian Social Democrats, the Christian Social Union, and the Free Democrats are looking forward to a 46 seat hold on the upper house. As Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung says, "With this majority, it could block every legislative proposal made by the coalition that passes through the Bundesrat." They need to win in the upcoming Saar elections in the first week of September, then follow up two weeks later with wins in Saxony as well as achieve an upset win in Brandenburg. This will set them up to steal a seat in either the Schleswig-Holstein or North Rhine-Westphalia elections. Should the Christian Democrats and their allies get two thirds of the seats in the Bundesrat by 2005, it will certainly suggest a change in the top spot in 2006 when Schröder's term is up.

Mark Steyn on the new Clinton week of hype

While making my way through the Telegraph, there is this gem by the singular Mark Steyn. Most observers agree that Clinton overshadows Kerry, the question is, does Clinton intend to.

Cars are more fuel-efficient than trains?

So claims a study reported in the Telegraph. The Telegraph article claims that trains have increased in weight: "Virgin's SuperVoyager rolling-stock is estimated to be 40 per cent heavier per seat than the ageing 125s it replaced." Further, "Engineers at Lancaster University said trains had failed to keep up with the motor and aviation industries in reducing fuel needs." This is entirely believable. It reflects the constant effect of the market operating on automobile design and the much more statist approach to railroad procurement. Also in that vein, "Roger Ford, of Modern Railways magazine, said one reason for declining energy efficiency was the impact of health and safety and disability access regulations."

The report continues, "I know this will generate howls of protest, but at present a family of four going by car is about as environmentally friendly as you can get." They include a nice chart worth a look. I would like to look at the numbers, but I would not be surprised if the constant application of engineering effort has improved automobile effeciency substantially while regulations have reduced the effeciency of trains.

Despite this there are questions that the Telegraph didn't explore. Paul Marston, their transport correspondent, gets some criticism from other sources, but most of it is not on point. "Friends of The Earth expressed surprise at the findings, which it said were not in line with previous studies." This may or may not be true, but the notion that studies are not in lock step agreement tells us nothing about which to find credible. Tony Bosworth, of FoE, is quoted as saying, "The main problem is not long-distance travel but the 25 per cent of car journeys which are less than two miles. Those are the least efficient and often the most polluting." I don't know how transportable these statistics are, but the Edinburgh to London trip is not a typical automobile trip, both in terms of its distance or in terms of the number of likely passengers. Bosworth wants to compare apples as well as oranges, and clearly a thorough analysis, of which this Lancaster University study is only a part, would consider not just a sample drive, but would analyze various kinds of drives in terms of their alternatives. The article has nothing to say on intra-city rail. Finally they quote Bosworth as saying, "Cars cause congestion, disrupt communities and are much less safe than trains." All of which would be part of a total analysis of transport alternatives, but does nothing to challenge the claims made by this study that trains cease to be fuel effecient. Not mentioned in the article is the question of how many people actually are riding in cars. I get the impression that the study is presuming more riders in cars than I would have expected, but that might be accurate for the British experience. Some examination, or a nice chart, on the number of riders per mile of travel at least, would be useful. They also seem to assume that the VW Passat is a typical vehcile. Is it? I'd like a variety of vehicles compared based on their prevelence on the road.

What is inescapable is that the study's claims that automobile effeciency increases and railroad effecincy descreases may have made automobiles a much better option than car alternative advocates might have expected. This includes me. I will be interested to see just how widely this analysis can be applied beyond a Passat traveling lengthwise across England. Most notably, the average commute will be my key interest in any analysis I attempt. See my two posts on rail here and here.

The Telegraph also includes an editorial on the subject with this final line, "the environmentalist lobby, traditionally as rigid in its thinking as Victorian missionaries, will have to come up with some new slogans. May we make a modest suggestion? "Save the planet. Jump into your car."

German Revolution?

The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung is reporting substantial electoral defeat by Schröder's Social Democrats, the German party of the left. The FAZ's own word for it is "debacle". They report, "The two dominant opposition parties - the Christian Democratic Union and its Bavarian sister party, the Christian Social Union - are not really interested in a quick change in government." They provide one key reason, that the opposition parties don't want to be saddled with Schröder's “Agenda 2010" in mid course of reform. I suspect they also would prefer to wait out the Iraqi situation a bit longer. Traditionally the Social Dems have been cool on America and the Christian Dems have been the America friedly party. That will be politically easier to pull off after soveriegnty is transfered in Iraq and things have been going well there. Just how Americophillic they will be will be an interesting thing to witness.

In fact, I would not be surprised if the future of politics in many parts of the world is that part of the differences in party result in a pro-America party or parties, and an anti-America party or parties. Its not unprecidented, but I suspect it will be the dominant paradigm, rather than Victor Davis Hanson's prediction that Europe is a lost cause.

How Timely

Recently, I argued that while many of us regarded the War on Terror to be the most important issue, I invented a conjectoral social conservative who was unhappy with the President, based on a caller to the Hugh Hewitt show. My point was, that just because we knew plenty of folks from the far right to the responsible center left (a catagory that includes Joe Lieberman and Bill Clinton) and on to a few like Christopher Hitchens who back the President because of the war on terror, doesn't mean there aren't folks who are unhappy because they prioritize differently.

Andrew Sullivan has added himself to those ranks. Glenn Reynolds mentioned his disagreements with the President, but supports him because the War on Terror is his priority. Arthur Chreknoff has done the same. But, for Sullivan, the priorities are different. I'm not going to attempt to arrange the three areas in priorty as Sullivan sees them, since I am not aware of a systematic approach to these iisues on his part. What I can say, based on his blog and and other statements, is that the domestic issues are very important to Sullivan, namely normalizing the the status of homosexuals in our society, and that this puts Sullivan squarely in opposition to Bush. In economic matters, Sullivan was not crazy about the tax cut and does lament the deficit. Sullivan clearly supports the War on Terror. Whatever support for the War Sullivan has, and on whatever economic issues he may find the President on solid ground, these are not sufficient to sustain his support for Bush. His priorities lead him to withdraw support for a president who he shares agreement with on other issues.

What's Wrong with Forks?

All silverware, but forks especially, suffer from a problem of balance. Too often the busy diner wants to move from here to there and so picks up their plate and the fork falls off. Especially bad are forks weighted in the handle. Too me this seems entirely backwards. When the time comes to utensilize some future kitchen, I will need to seek out a set of tableware which has addressed the problem.

separation of Powers

Those who have a strong commitment to a separation of powers in our society are often liable to support the principle broadly, favorite a divert of power centers in society, and so being suspicious of trusts or other combinations of power which would undermine the defense of liberty. My friends on the right would have no problem recognizing the problems inherent in the alliance of big media with one political party. For similar reasons, its troubling that some accomodationists would happily blur the line between church and state, or deny that the separation of church and state is intended by the 1st Amendment.

Its one thing to be even-handed but separate, its quite another to either attempt to purge religion or to ask the state to endorse religion. Purging religion is to arm the state with an ideological purpose, as is endorsing religion.

One the one hand there should be a concern about allowing the state to acquire power over the operation of churches or the ideas which they promulgate. If you want to see religion remain ideologically independent of the state position on controversial issues, separation benefits religion. Are cultural conservatives normally people who look at the state and say, I want more of that, and give me a double helping of bureaucratic inefficiency and multiple constituency inertia?

Religion, just like markets, flourish when the state gets out of the way. I don't want the state subsidizing steel or Catholicism, and I don't want burdensome regulations or interference which would deny us cherry tomatoes or evangelical outreach.

People are Short Term Optimizers

Professor Bainbridge has an interesting post on setting the economic sliders. I view the economy as governed by four sliders, much like the one that controls your computer's sound volume. As you move any slider the other three are affected. The sliders are productivity, equity, stability, and sustainability. At any given moment, a shift towards greater equity will tend to reduce the other sliders. Over the long term economists have learned how to increase the stability slider a bit while keeping the productivity slider pretty high. We call these Keynesianism and Monatarism.

Specifically, Bainbridge is talking about these choices in terms of corporate governance. In terms of my metaphore, he asks what effect on productivity is had when we try to slide the equity slider toward greater equity as a result of greater labor influence in corporate governance.

My own extended thought experiment in the effects of socialism, but more importantly the long term evidence suggests that a shift which increases equity and lowers productivity has long term consequences for sustainability and stability.

This reinforces the notion that humans are good short term optimizers (and sometimes they prefer to maximize) but that they are poor long term optimizers. They tend to be especially bad when the consequences of action is both temporally distant and indeterminate. Eating a proper diet involves certain short term costs (mostly of a transitional nature) but provides long term benefits. Since the benifit is deferred and the costs are front loaded, eating well (or quitting smoking, or wearing seatbelts) are difficult for humans to sustain. When the consequences are not only deffered but uncertain, they are especially hard to sustain.

So, given a choice between guiding a corporation towards shareholder wealth maximization or improving worker advantages now, workers tend to benefit their immediate selves, even at the cost of their long term selves.

As Jane Galt discusses (here and here) attempts to do both simultaneously. As Bainbridge noted, "my article presents a clear explanation of why some firms find employee involvement enhances productivity and, perhaps even more important, why it fails to do so in some firms." Putting aside the question of those who fail to navigate an increase to equity and productivity, just how real are the achievements of those who appear to achieve both. Galt asks, to what extent are these successes there result of a "stakeholder" model, and to what extent is the success based elsewhere, and the equity benefits are possible therefore?

This kind of situation is very complex and understudied, but I suspect it may well be possible to find combinations of equity benefits (broadly distributed rather than concentrated in stockholder an excecutive hands) and productivity benefits in our current (and future) enviroments.

In general, I would argue that there are minimum thresholds of stability, sustainability, and equity that are required at a given level of productivity, below which, productivity is harmed. Once they are met, any play left in the system can be allocated according to the values of the society setting the sliders. However, productivy has a tendency to produce benefits to the other catagories as it climbs.

This leads me to conclude that in general, the greatest benefits to the greatest number are realized when threshold levels of equity, stability, and sustainability are met and the rest of the play is put into productivity.

Airborne

My brother has caughed up four posts this month so far on his blog. He has, however, revealed that he plans to parachute for his 31st birthday.

Three factions in the Republican Party

I have long held that there are three factions in the Republican party, the social conservatives, the pro-business wing, and the hawks. Today, a few callers to the Hugh Hewitt show were complaining that Bush was spineless because he hadn't done much to advance a conservative social agenda. I called in and made the point that parties are collations, and that the president has opted to spend his efforts on the war on terror (foreign policy) and the recovery via the tax cut. As such, his domestic achievements had suffered. Aside from No Child Left Behind there have been no major policy initiatives.

Now I read in Power Line that the President is commanding a huge lead over Kerry on foreign policy and a substantial lead on the economy. Its as though where the President has made an effort, he has built a popular record. He has placed foreign policy as the top priority and has a huge lead. He has put the economy in second place, doing only enough to cut taxes substantially and release the productive power of the American people. As such, the deficit is left for later. Something of a compromise. People who are committed to some specific or to a broad conservative social agenda seem to be disappointed that the President hasn't been more active. I say the war on terror has crowded out initiatives the President would have taken otherwise.

Hugh responded that he has a forthcoming book on the subject and that he argues that we should measure success in terms of getting 75% for the reasons I have mentioned, rather that focusing on the lost 25% and lamenting failure.

I am interested in what Hugh will have to say on paper. If he means to say that 75% of the conservative agenda has been accomplished I demure and suggest that its more like half. If he means to include the idea that the liberal agenda has been halted at the Federal level during this administration, I will concur.

Let's take a domestic issue, one that the caller raised, gun rights. The President has done nothing to advance the cause of responsible gun ownership by repealing some of the silly Clinton era laws. He has however allowed some to lapse, and certainly not considered any new limitations. Is the glass half full - no move to the left on guns? Or is the glass half empty - no move to the right on guns?

For a guy like me, who considers foreign policy to be the most important issue for a president, who puts economic issues second, and who further more would probably have problems with Bush's social agenda, I feel like I am getting 90-95% of what I want. Aside from the deficit, I'm totally a happy camper.

For a fellow who puts social issues first, economics second, and like me in reverse is not happy with Bush's foreign policy agenda (lets call him a Buchananite in FP), he's getting very little indeed.

I can swallow the deficit and celebrate the tax cut because I'm getting what I want in foreign policy and can ignore Bush's stand on church-state issues, his gay amendment, and some other troubling policies because its mostly talk. For the other guy in my example, who just sees talk in the domestic arena, who doesn't like the President's FP, he cannot swallow the deficit, but rather ends up writing off the tax cut as the only good thing Bush has done.

All I can say to such a fellow, however, is that Bush was your man before 9-11, but he's mine now. Whether you can have him back in a second term is up for grabs.

Note: As anyone who has ever called a talk show might recognize, my phone comments were brief, and my description of them here are elaborated, a benefit of this forum.

Iraqi Trial of Saddam

The way some people are discussing what constitutes a fair trial for Saddam Hussain leaves something to be desired. The question is one of establishing what he really did, and finding a fair punishment. No fair trial would not find him guilty. Its guilty of what, that is the question, and what do we do about it.

Wolfowitz in the WSJ

He outlines policy nicely on Iraq, covering the President's five point plan.

The End is Nie

My brother has seen The Day After Tomorrow and has reviewed it. So, it turns out has Matt Welch. He writes, "Utter horseshit, but damned entertaining."

Which is the Progressive Party?

Reading Roger Simon's post on "Did I leave the left or did the left leave me?" and subsequent comments. A long back and forth takes place as the notion of possitive social change and an adhearance to the status quo is discussed. Most conclude that both parties have on various occassions taken both roles. As someone who worries about the influence of the South on Republican politics, I am heartened to read this comment: "One could argue (as my own Democrat Father does) that the South has become more progressive the more Republican it has become." This means that the old Dixiecrat preservation of the status quo is not a Southern quality which transends party, but something that is being shed just as hostility to the party of Lincoln has.

Highway Follies

Almost three weeks ago I linked to Virginia Postrel's NYT article on highway spending. There has been some back and forth over at the Dynamist on this topic. First, a reader suspects some highways statistics are inflated and unsupportable by methodology. A Senior Staff Economist in the FHWA Office of Policy replies and defends the figure that one billion dollars in spending creates 48,000 jobs. VP remains dubious: "It still doesn't pass the smell test." A few more thoughts by VP on how a great deal of this road spending is "low-value roads with porkbarrel appeal. It also subsidizes neighborhood amenities." Road spending isn't aimed to be effecient expenditure, economically stimulating, but rather is its about political spending to bring dollars back to the district. She continues in a sequential post on how the assumption behind the 48,000 per billion statistic assumes Keynesian disequilibrium of Great Depression proportions.

Are you in an echo chamber?

Too many people are, and here is more evidence. Daniel Drenzer links to a prose stylist who has gone over the Marxist academic cliff. Chun the Unavoidable has mixed feelings about his anthropological discovery of a rare specimen (or so it is supposed), an alleged supporter of, "the President without having an obvious financial interest at stake." As the specimen, Sissy Willis, responds, "We were reminded, of course, of Pauline Kael's reaction to Richard Nixon's landslide presidential victory over George McGovern in 1972: 'How can that be?' she supposedly said. 'No one I know voted for Nixon.'"

Chun the Unavoidable has seemed to avoid a large segment of the population, given the number of people who voted for W. And I wouldn't be surprised if they were avoiding him too. As Virginia Postrel pointed out some time ago, people like it that way. People are congregating more and more with the like-minded. She notes, "The danger, of course, is that people will believe the stereotypes of their political opposites, because they don't actually know anyone on the opposite side of the red-blue divide."

The most interesting people to talk to and to read are those who are dealing with engagement (not neccesarily agreement) across their own boundaries. If you don't talk to and read what other people have to say, people with different assumptions, values, and goals, you are wearing a set of blinders.

The Outsourcing Bogeyman

This is the title of Daniel Drezner's article in Foreign Affairs on this hot election year topic. The heart of the matter is here: "The benefits of such free trade -- to both consumers and producers -- are significant. Cushioning this process for displaced workers makes sense. Resorting to protectionism to halt the process, however, is a recipe for decline."

Condorcet voting method

I came across something interesting on the web this morning. A method of voting advocated during the late eighteenth century by the marquis de Condorcet, the enlightenment mathematician and economist. I am familiar with his economic theories (we slight Condorcet in favor of Adam Smith, but in fact, both are founders of capitalism). In 1785, Condorcet wrote the Essay on the Application of Analysis to the Probability of Majority Decisions, which I had seen refereced, but never described. Here is a nice website on the Condorcet Method. Here is the wikipedia version.

I had always had a soft spot for Condorcet because of his economic ideas, his social ideas, and because I am generally partial to enlightenment figures, but here is another thing to weigh in favor of him.

As someone who laments the way winner take all eliminates the possibility of any escape from the two-party system, as well as the seemingly unresolvable problems of campaign finance reform, the Condorcet method seems quite interesting.

Cosby chastizes those poor parents in the Black community

This story seems to be ignored for the most part by major media out of concern for the minefield that accompanies issues of race. Matt Rosenberg covers it in NRO.

Shattered Glass

The movie is out on home format now, so I rented the DVD, watched the 60 Minutes interview, watched the movie, and watched the movie again with the commentary provided by the screenwriter/director and Charles Lane, who was a writer then the editor during the period of Glass' ficturnalism. Afterwards I went to the web to read the original Forbes coverage. This is Kambiz Foroohar's analysis written at the time. The movie makes him the editor of Forbes Online (which may well be accurate, but movies take liberties). This is Adam L. Penenberg's article on the New Republic piece which brought Glass down. As portrayed in the movie, Forbes is irked that they were scooped, and sets out to write a companion piece with a bit more meat for their business oriented readers. When they look at the story it comes apart in their hands. This is Penenberg's article on the Forbes revelation that the TNR story was no good.

I ended up at the Daily Standard's take, written by Jonathan V. Last. Last is not a sympathetic reviewer, because, I suspect he differs with TNR politically. While he points to all manner of charges against Glass from the Correspondence pages, I'd need to go back and read more of the correspondence to draw form conclusions about how telling these Last prints are. For myself, I would not be surprised if TNR doesn't find charges made by the college RNC, the American Conservative Union, and other similar groups to be disinterested. My old TNR's are in a box and I'll have to get them out at some point and take a look. I have seen some articles in TNR and other places generate heated correspondence, but as Last points out, its not one or even a few pieces that raise eyebrows, some issues are controversial, its that Glass had an unusual amount.

Its a interesting story. The movie was well done, neither sensational nor tedious. The actors were well chosen and interesting choices. I particularly enjoyed seeing Hank Azaria and Steve Zahn playing dramatic roles.

Swingers at Slate

Slate has a new feature on swing states, and its first example is Missouri. Show me!