Why I'm not a leftist any more The short answer is that I had seen the future and it didn't work.
Let me elaborate. I spent nearly ten years working for the Social Security Administration, mostly in the SSI program, in a run-down small city north of Boston. What I saw was that the money used for welfare programs of one sort or another were at once too generous and too miserly. They were too generous in that they permitted one generation after another to live without making any serious attempt to get an education, a spouse, or a job. They were too miserly in the amount they provided and in letting people keep some of their pitiful savings. I'm not going into details, but when I recognized a homeless family on TV and knew the details behind their "plight," I had a lot more insight into it than the sympathetic reporter. Giving them more money was not going to help. They had already had a windfall and blown it in spectacular fashion.
Growing up during the Vietnam era had given me an unshakable distrust of the government. Seeing the devastation left by the anti-poverty programs led me to distrust the government even when it intended to do laudable things. Screw-ups were inevitable, and failures were never addressed. This set me apart from my brothers and sisters, most of whom are reliable Democratic voters. They continue to see government as essentially a good thing, income redistribution as justice, and concentration of power as benign, as long as it is in the proper hands. Seeing the effects in person persuaded me otherwise. I was seeing the unintended secondary effects, and they were destructive. From mistrusting those in power when I disagreed with them to mistrusting them even when I agreed with them was not such a big step. When Jimmy Carter came up for re-election, I voted Republican for the first time in my life. Why? Because Carter was not only clearly incompetent, but kept trying to fix things. Reagan was at least promising to do less, which meant fewer opportunities to make a mess.
Still, I'm a pretty poor excuse for a conservative I can't say much of the social conservative program appeals to me. I'm the veteran of too many failed self-improvement campaigns to think I can do much to improve anyone else. Reagan's initial attraction for me was his lack of energy. Where Carter had even personally allocated court time on the White House tennis courts, Reagan took a lot of naps. In his two terms, I don't think I ever saw him posing on a golf course -- too strenuous, I suppose. I'm still inclined to vote for whoever seems likely to stay out of my hair for his entire term of office.
It turned out that Reagan actually had a few ideas. They weren't complicated, but he held them firmly:
Governments are typically incompetent (see discussion above). It's best to give it fewer things to do, so fewer things will get fouled up.
Communism, as one of the most intrusive forms of government, fouls up beyond any recovery. Clear some space for it to fall down.
We live in a pretty nice place. Let's not mess it up ourselves or let anyone else do it, either.
There may have been another, or maybe not.
There was not much of Pat Robertson's or Pat Buchanan's program enacted in the eight years Reagan held office. He may not have gotten around to it. The man was a genius at leaving things alone. Maybe Reagan was not much of a conservative, either.
MFS Again OK, maybe I was a little hasty in opining that MFS was clean. According to this Boston Globe article, the SEC is ready to bring indictments regarding market timing in several of their funds. The funds involved were large domestic funds, not the usual international or junk bond funds used in market timing. They put the policy in a memorandum, which makes the investigation a lot easier. Reading between the lines, it looks like one of the Prudential brokers is trying to make a deal by turning in his confederates. Again, market timing is not illegal, but there is a problem if the prospectus says they do not allow it while it is in fact permitted for favored clients.
There was not much of a market timing opportunity in the MFS funds where the practice was allowed. International funds attract market timers because the lag between the fund's pricing time and the underlying market's close creates an arbitrage opportunity. Junk bond funds create arbitrage opportunities because they hold many securities with very little liquidity, so the prices used to value the portfolio are often stale (that means wrong today, although maybe right last month). The MFS funds were large domestic funds, mostly domestic equity. Market timers were apparently exploiting the differences between the fund's price (based on the prior day's pricing until 4:00 PM) and the price of the closest related index, such as the S&P 100 for Massachusetts Investors Trust or NASDAQ for MFS Emerging Growth Fund. If there was a big upward move in the index, the market timer could buy the fund and lock in the gain for the day, since the fund was sold at a price that did not include the day's results. This would be a small amount in isolation, but a guaranteed profit of 1% for one day's investment is pretty good money over the course of a year.
This is particularly unfortunate for MFS because they had just settled their previous SEC problem involving insider information on Treasury bonds.
The real problem for individual investors is that if the MFS funds track the indices so closely, why are they paying the steep fees to MFS for index performance? Why not buy a cheap index mutual fund or exchange-traded fund?
Another fraud indictment in the mutual fund scandal, this one involving market timing. This time it's Invesco, the parent of the AIM funds. The fund group and its CEO are being charged with felony fraud. The company gives its side here. Their statement basically sounds like "no controlling legal authority." It looks to me like the SEC took too much grief from the quick settlement of Putnam's misdeeds and is playing hardball now.
PCs are not PC? The Volokh Conspiracyhas a funny piece about LA County requiring that computer disk drive configurations not be described as master and slave. It sounds like they have taken the interim step of putting tape over the jumper setting connections. For the sake of consistency, they should probably also remove the master and slave cylinders from the brake systems of their vehicles, though they should feel free to continue driving. Hey, it's no skin off my nose -- they are unlikely to reach the Boston area with no brakes, and if they did, they would not seem entirely out of place.
Change of focus You will probably continue to see generic rants here, since I am an excitable boy, but I'm trying to devote more attention to finance, accounting, and computers. You may have already noticed. These are topics that I can maybe give an informed opinion and maybe some useful information. Opinions without information are not exactly in short supply in the blogosphere.
With that in mind, another mystery has been solved. When it became apparent that MFS Investments was the subject of an investigation by the SEC, I wondered why the funds involved were domestic, rather than international, funds. There is little opportunity for market timing in domestic funds, since the funds are priced at the same time as their underlying securities. The only thing that made sense was late trading, which is illegal. That is exactly what happened, and it looks like the MFS shareholders were the victims of a corrupt brokerage and the hedge fund that kicked off the whole scandal, Canary Capital. Read about it here. It looks like the NYAG and SEC, together with the Comptroller of the Currency, are landing on the brokerage with both feet. The brokerage is being dissolved, and there are felony charges being brought (at last!). MFS itself looks clean.
I'm happy to see that my gift for prophecy is still working. Larry Lasser lasted less than a week after the expression of confidence by the board of directors.
Putnam is now joined by Fidelity, MFS, Scudder, Hancock, Loomis Sayles, and Pioneer.
There is a new issue here as well: directed brokerage. This is a system in which a fund sponsor asks a broker to push their funds in return for a larger share of the funds' portfolio trades. In effect, a marketing expense is turned into a cost for the shareholders. There are a lot of familiar names in this new investigation. MFS has already announced it will suspend the practice, which is not illegal and is disclosed to shareholders.
Directed brokerage may not be the only kind of dangerous liason in the fund industry. It would be interesting to see how fund sponsors deal with relationships with their other vendors, customers, and distribution channels. Do they have a control for their executives owning shares in their vendors, for example? At what level do the traditional perks and "gimmes" rise to the level of corruption? Golf? Golf clubs? A vintage Corvette? A rate break on a mortgage?
Mutual Fund Follies Larry Lasser, the head of Putnam, has received an expression of "great confidence" from the chairman of Putnam's parent company, Marsh & McLennan. That is usually the kiss of death. Meanwhile, state pension funds are withdrawing (reg. req'd) from Putnam. Even Massachusetts, where Putnam is based, withdrew its $1.6 billion. With that kind of money walking out the door, can Lasser be far behind? Maybe another CEO might survive this, but Lasser is well known for his lavish compensation package and his unforgiving treatment of those employees who fail. You may remember that a good many equity managers were forced out after the funds' heavy investment in technology stocks stopped being a good idea. If he is held to the same standard, he should be scrounging empty copier paper boxes for packing his personal stuff.
When this particular scandal is over, what will be the next one? There could be trouble about the composition of the boards of directors for mutual funds. The position of director or trustee of a mutual fund is the best part-time job on the planet. Most make over $200,000 per year by serving on the boards of many individual funds in the fund family. They are always nominated by the fund management, and because there are seldom large individual holdings of fund shares, proxy fights are nearly nonexistent and alway unsuccessful. If a director proves to be too obnoxious or asks too many questions, what is there to stop the fund managers from leaving him out of the nomination next time? How independent can anyone be when judging the performance of a company paying you so much for so little investment of time and effort?
The Louisiana CPA society has come out with a calendar purporting to show that accountants are not as boring as the public seems to think. I would have thought that a couple of years full of scandals, bankruptcies, and trials should already taken care of the boring image.
The mutual fund scandal is spreading, with Massachusetts Secretary of State William F. Galvin saying that he will be charging Putnam, one of the ten biggest fund sponsors, with civil securities fraud. The fraud allegation arises from Putnam's expressed policy of forbidding market timing in general while allowing it for certain accounts. Meanwhile, New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer is investigating Federated Investors, another mutual fund sponsor, for late trading. The SEC has asked both companies for information about their trading policies, and an SEC investigation appears to be under way for Putnam.
More Local Interest On the Boston area's obsessions:
Did you know that Derek Jeter's full name is Derek Sanderson Jeter? That's right, folks. The shortstop you love to hate was named after one of the best players ever to lace up for the Boston Bruins.
The ALCS was a beauty, despite the results. The two teams were well-matched, and both looked like they belonged there in terms of starters, hitting, and relief pitching. The brawling was another matter -- save that for the hockey game (see above).
Whitey Bulger has been indicted in Oklahoma on murder charges. Word is that the Oklahoma prosecutors are considering asking the US Marshalls' Office to take charge of finding the fugitive. The head of the Boston FBI office reportedly takes this as a slight, since his agents have been looking for their favorite snitch since 1995 and he feels they are getting pretty good at it.
Five Finger Exercises The "blood for oil" nonsense has always given me a rash. Now that we have some facts and figures, let's have another look at it and see how it holds up.
First, we get most of our oil from Canada, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela (remember how the strike there pushed our prices up?), Mexico, and Nigeria in that order. Two-thirds is from outside OPEC. This is not a new situationSource: DOE. It looks to me like there are adequate supplies without Iraq.
Second, even if we were to steal the Iraqi oil at the price of extracting and shipping it, the difference between the cost of stealing and the market price for oil would in no way compensate for the cost of invading, occupying, and rebuilding Iraq. We're talking about $87 billion, give or take, as an initial estimate. If we stay longer, the price goes up. Bear in mind that Iraq had a pre-war production level of 2.5 million barrels per day. At about $30/barrel, that's about $27 billion gross per year, less cost of production of roughly $7 billion. Shipping is extra. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the cost of occupation (just the military part) as somewhere between $8 billion (at greatly reduced force levels -- unlikely) and $29 billion. The most commonly mentioned figure is about $20 million. Let's see, an initial outlay of $87 billion, with a payback of the initial investment at the rate of approximately $0 per year? That's a tough way of making a profit -- no doubt it would have been much cheaper to stay home.
Local Interest H. Paul Rico, formerly famous as the FBI agent who broke up the Angiulo and Patriarcha organized crime families in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, has seen the luster of his star dimming. It turned out that the Boston FBI office had sent innocent men to prison for murders committed by FBI informants. Now he has been arrested for his involvement in a 1981 murder, allegedly committed to help the Bulger gang (full time bad guys and part time FBI assets) continue skimming from the victim's jai alai fronton, where Rico was head of security. Note that he was arrested on a warrant from Oklahoma, where the murder was committed, not on a federal warrant. The FBI has not been especially successful in unearthing the wrongdoing of its employees. Most of the heavy lifting -- including exhumations -- has been done by state authorities.
A Modest Proposal The Nobel Peace Prize will be awarded tomorrow. If it is not too late, I would like to nominate Saddam Hussein. Given that the unilateralist United States is the leading threat to world peace, who would better represent the principled resistance to the hyperpower? As the first to stand up to the United States, Saddam led the way for France, Russia, Germany, Canada, Syria, and even mighty Belgium. Certainly he is second to none in his opposition to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. As for the prize money, we can be sure that he will put it to good use relieving the poverty of the bereaved families of suicide bombers, funding the national liberation of Iraq, and erecting tasteful statues of himself. Saddam, if not the obvious choice, would demonstrate the seriousness of Europe's devotion to justice, freedom, and peace.
Being out of work has at least reinforced for me the value of a dollar (currently about $1.15/euro). I was able to save a packet of money by building my own computer, but software can very easily double the price. Fortunately, there are many useful applications out there for little or no money. Here is one of them; I will bring up some of the others I'm currently using in another article.
Pegasus Mail is a free mail client application that I use instead of Microsoft's Exchange or Outlook. Why bother, when you get the MS product free with purchase of Windows or Office? Well, that's one of those questions that contains its own answer. Just as virus and worm writers target the Windows operating system, and used to write malicious Word macros, they target Outlook because nearly everyone uses it. If you use something else, you are less vulnerable. To get the full benefit of the switch, make sure you uninstall Outlook.
Pegasus uses a rather clever way of making money from a free program. The software is free, but you have to buy the manual. There are no ads. Naturally, I felt obliged to take my chances. The mistakes I made setting up my POP/STMP accounts resulted in standard error messages that I simply copied into a search engine and found help for on the Internet. Problem solved. The address book is OK, but does not import entries from other programs or files. It does not work well with my firewall, Sygate Personal Firewall (also free -- maybe a later item), but there is a work-around: switch to "Allow All" on the firewall security setting, send the queued mail, then restore the firewall. When setting up your options, make sure to check "Send enclosures instead of attachments" in outgoing mail. If you ignore this rather opaque item, you need to send two messages: the one you typed with your text but not attachment, and one with your attachment but no text. The second is automatically generated, but both are in queue and both must be sent. This options combines them.
The features available in Pegasus are actually a big step up from Outlook. Whitelists and blacklists are available.E-mail filters are easy to set up and extensive. The default file is actually very comprehensive. I have been very careful about promulgating my e-mail address, but whether due to this or to the filter, I have not received a single spam item or missed an actual e-mail.
I just posted a llllooooonnnggggg article on my business site about the developing mutual fund scandal. What it amounts to is another way the little investor can get screwed, without even getting a dinner before or flowers afterwards. To save you some time and trouble, most of it is explanations of what was done and how. The part that interests me, though, is that the SEC has not yet been heard from, and they have some heavy ordnance they can bring to bear on the malefactors that NYAG Spitzer cannot.
Update 9/14/03, 10:15 AM EST -- the SEC has required about 80 mutual fund complexes to provide internal reports, letters, e-mails and other documents to federal regulators by tomorrow, Monday. The request was made Friday. This should be a very busy weekend.
Another day that will live in infamy. This was the impetus for the start of many weblogs, particularly the "warblog" variety. This may be one of them, since the author firmly believes in peace, and that there's nobody as peaceful as a dead troublemaker (Keith Laumer).
Meantime, I've been building another site for my business/career, plus another site for fun.
Recording Artists vs. Recording Industry -- Update
Somehow this got by me, but the lawsuit led by Sam Moore of Sam & Dave that I discussed previously has made some progress. The part of the suit charging AFTRA with failing to make sure the record companies paid into the artists' pension fund was settled in December. The record companies are still on the hook for overdue payments. Funny, isn't it, how the jerks complaining about free downloads were themselves getting free music for years? Moore is suing under RICO, which may not get him far, but also under ERISA, the retirement law. He may have good leverage there.
Incidentally, a search for "Sam Moore" on the RIAA website came up with no results.
About two and a half years ago, there was a hideous massacre in an office a couple of blocks from me. Now yesterday, the helicopters were hovering again, and I felt this sinking feeling. It turns out there was a man living in the neighborhood who has spent the last two years in prison for possession of a sawed-off shotgun. One of his family members thought it would be nice to hire a cleaning crew to fix the place up. When the cleaners went to the basement, they found guns, ammunition, explosives, and instructions for making bombs and booby traps. The state police bomb disposal crew was working well into the night under the lights of the news crews. I think it's about time we moved.
The islamofascists have resumed blowing up busses in Israel. Their manifest intent is to prevent a peaceful solution based on two states side by side. We should not be surprised -- the Psalmist understood this several millenia ago.
Psalm 120
6 My soul hath long dwelt with him that hateth peace.
7 I am for peace: but when I speak, they are for war.
The New Marianne? I didn't know there were any libertarians/classical liberals in France, but it turns out there are a few and they have a lot to say. Here is a translation of a speech made at a counter-demonstration against the chaos caused by the strikes.
No to the undeserving trade unions!!!
Speech given Sunday May 25, at the rally at la place de l'Hôtel de ville.
My dear friends,
My name is Sabine Herold. I speak for the association "Freedom, I write your name," co-organizer of this rally. First of all, I want to thank you for coming in such large numbers today, particularly on such a day as this. I know the difficulties you must have faced in joining us, and I thank you for it! I thank you all for your courage and determination! We do not have chartered busses from all over France to get you here, the media wants to shut us up, we have only our e-mails, our faxes and our will to spread the word.
But today, we have decided to join together to say no, no to the attitude of undeserving trade unions. There they are! Not far from us! They probably expected to have their demonstration in peace. Nothing doing! We will not give up the streets to them! Today something is different: for once, we will say NO to them!
We are nothing in their eyes, nothing but anonymous citizens, only allowed to curse under our breath. But we will prove to them, together, that from now on, they will have to take us into account! The silent majority has become noisy and it does not intend to be silenced!
I am a student. I have classes and examinations, but there are no busses. I buy my orange pass, but there is no subway. Later, I will pay my taxes, but my children will not go to school. Much later, I will sign up for a retirement pension, but I will get one?
Like you, like all of us gathered here today, I am angry. I am very angry!
How can one accept that our democracy is left at the mercy of the with good will of trade unions who got no more than 20% in labor elections, elections ignored by the employees? Which is legitimate, those policies made by those freely elected to office by all voters, or those of the trade union bosses? Where are the two sides of industry where one sees only adversaries of the company? Who are these trade unionists who represent only themselves? What right do they have to deprive us of our freedom of movement, of action, even of speech!
Fortunately, thanks to you, the voice of freedom is finally raised in protest against the cacophony of the vested interests. It already rings in the ears of the tycoons of FO, the CGT and SUD.
It is time to say to these terrorists of social action, to these hostage-takers of public opinion, that we have had enough! It is time to remind the politicians, those whom we elected and who govern in our names, that are waiting for them to show some determination!
We will not put up with the calamity of chronic strikes and trade-union barons! This is the true motto of our gathering.
Because yes, there is a right to strike. But certainly not a duty, as these perpetual demonstrators seem to believe!
We wait for the day when trade unions behave responsibly, and not as bastions of reactionary egotism!
We are joined together this evening to express our anger. But that is not enough. As the poet Goethe wrote, "Nothing is true which is not fertile". Also, we must prepare today the next change. We must transform our anger into new action.
These are questions which must be answered:
- who will pay for our retirements? Do you think it will be the civil servants of the SNCF?
- after that, who will pay the for retirement of our children and grandchildren? Do you think it will be the South-Rail or CGT trade unions ?
Citizens, let us require answers to these questions! The reform started by the Government is a good first step, but still insufficient. But how can we go further, when the conservative interests are already cast in concrete? The government should not yield to the pressure of the streets.
It must preserve our fundamental personal freedoms, like the right to take the train, the subway, the bus, which our taxes pay for!
All of us, joined together today on this place, we are the resistors! We are the precursors of change! The law of silence has fallen! We will not keep silent any longer!
It is our duty to roll back the trade unions and to save true social justice, which is equality among all citizens against the privileges of a minority!
Let us swear together, here and now, to resist so that tomorrow will be a different day, a day of Freedom!
How Can I Miss You if You Won't Go Away? Eight years of the self-absorbed, mendacious Clintons, and here's Hillary!® plugging her new book. You know, the one with the $8 million advance from the friendly publisher? Does anyone recall the prodigious amount of crap given to Gingrich for a much less lucrative deal? Must not have had enough oral sex in it. But I digress.
So, according to the reports of the interview (which I could not bear to watch), Hillary!® opined that she will not run for president in 2008, since the country is "not ready" for a woman president. I think rather that as God is just and merciful, the country will never be ready for President Hillary!®. However, I think the country would be ready for its first Black woman president in 2008 -- Condoleeza Rice. Imagine a president both able and willing to call Chirac, Schroeder, and Putin a bunch of sneaking thieves, each in his own language.
LT Smash has a few pointers for the rest of the world on how to cope with Americans, since it doesn't look like we're going away any time soon. His section on our reverence for the Constitution is worth reading, if you're not yet part of the family. When the International Court of Justice was being discussed, many US commentators objected that some of its provisions violated Constitutional guarantees of due process (small matters of double jeopardy, self-incrimination, ex post facto law, trial by jury, unreasonable search and seizure, etc.). When its advocates suggested that we simply amend the Constitution to bring it into line with international standards, there was a national gasp that caused onshore breezes all along our shores.
I guess I must have strayed into leftie land, but I can't figure out which blogger it was. My browser history didn't help. Anyway, there was a snide remark made about right-wingers sitting around blogging in their Star Wars jammies. There may have been some use of the odious Britishism "wankers." If I could remember where I saw it, I would visit condign punishment on the miscreant. Let me just say, though, that you can have my Star Wars jammies when you pry my cold, dead fingers out of them.
Democracy in Iraq? The short answer is "not likely."
The long answer is that democracy is the worst form of government, except for everything else that has been tried, as Churchill said. This implies that many other forms of government will be tried first, and this is usually the case. Consider France, which has gone through two monarchies, two empires, five republics, one commune, and countless failed uprisings since the US established its constitution. Sure, we had a civil war to tie up the loose ends, but nothing like the Reign of Terror, the Vendee massacres, Napoleon's police state, or Vichy. Even now, their acceptance of democracy is so grudging that they are eager to give it up to a European super-state, and their contempt for the bourgeois values that maintain democracy is well known.
Iraqis are likely to take the wrong lesson from Saddam. Instead of concluding that a concentration of power is dangerous, they are likely to think that the problem was the concentration of power in the wrong hands. They will therefor look for the right man in whom to invest power. They will look for a virtuous man -- or a convincing counterfeit. Right now, Iraqis are demonstrating against the US occupiers, demanding withdrawal, demanding restoration of utilities, demanding suppression of banditry -- demanding, in effect, the imposition of the reign of virtue. They want someone to do something for them, and the sooner the better. The chanting and fist-waving are on TV every night. What I don't see is Iraqis organizing library committees, holding PTO bake sales, or joining a volunteer fire department. They are not doing much for themselves; instead, they want someone to do things for them. They are, in effect, clients in search of a patron. If you want someone to put things right and take care of you, if you will not expend effort voluntarily for the good of the community, you will not get democracy.
I live in Massachusetts. We still have a town meeting, and every time I go to one, I wonder how the institution has lasted some 300 years. There is a Norman Rockwell illustration of a stalwart fellow standing up in the town meeting, unloading some plain homespun wisdom, oblivious of the admiring gazes of his wife, his neighbors, and his parents. A more honest picture would show people rolling their eyes and pondering a bathroom break as one of the notorious cranks stands up to mount his hobbyhorse for a good 15 minutes. Picture a crowd of Iraqis limiting their display of annoyance and disagreement to mere ocular calisthenics. Democracy is not just the freedom to express your opinion but the duty to let someone else express his, no matter how foolish. If you are unwilling to sit still while someone says stupid things, you will not get democracy.
The idea of a loyal opposition is foreign to the Arab world. Under Saddam, of course, dissent was fatal, but an opponent is an enemy to more Arabs than Saddam. Kinship, clan, tribe, ethnic group, and religion all have claims on Iraqis' loyalties and form the basis of the opposing groups now seeking power. These groupings are permanent and not amenable to compromise. Because they form the basis of the distribution of rights and favors, the success of one means the failure of another. In the US, our Civil War was provoked by the irreconcilable differences over slavery and the unwillingness of one faction to abide by the results of an election in which they were free and full participants. If you will not accept a political loss, or if you fear for your property, rights, and safety as the result of one, you will not have a democracy.
More bloviation to follow, but I need to get some work done.
Richard Chamberlain outed himself today. I wonder why he bothered? Was this supposed to have been a secret? Oh, wait, I see -- he's plugging his memoirs.
Welcome to Massachusetts This little item never made it into the Boston Globe, wasn't reported on TV or radio, and landed fairly deep in the Boston Herald. For those of you from outside the area, a little background might help. The whole thing is recounted in the book Black Mass (and I don't get anything from Amazon, thanks). The synopsis is this:
The FBI recruited Whitey Bulger, the brother of the then State Senate President, as an informant. Whitey was not just any informer -- he was the head of "the Irish Mob." His needs and those of the FBI dovetailed nicely since they both wanted to eliminate the Mafia in the area. Bulger was given a free pass to do as he pleased, up to and including murder. One of the corrupt FBI agents, John Connolly, was recently sent to jail. Connolly was obliging enough to finger victims for some of Whitey's killings, and tipped him off in time to evade arrest (he is still missing). There was rumored involvement with the State Police (one of them went to jail, too), the US District Attorney's office, and all other sorts of law enforcement agencies. The legendary Paul Rico, the FBI guy credited with bringing down the Angiulo and Patriarca families, may have been Whitey's original patron, but didn't recall much of anything when called before Congress to testify. In any event, even as far back as 1965, law enforcement was obliging enough to send 3 men to prison (originally sentenced to death!) for a murder committed by one of their informants.
Against that backdrop, the prosecuting attorney against Connolly's lookalike brother-in-law and fellow felon (doppelgangsters?) Arthur Giannelli forgot to call his star witness in an extortion trial. He didn't issue a subpoena. Instead, he sent a letter to the witness's former addresss -- in Arizona. (Didn't notice the 617 area code on the phone number, huh?) The witness found out about it when a reporter for the Herald called him the day of the hearing to find out why he hadn't appeared. No subpoena, no witness. No witness, no case. Case dismissed. The DA's spokesman described it as "an innocent mistake." Call it what you want, but "innocent" is not the first term that occurs to me. John Connolly was not the only rat in the barn.
The Telegraph has an article on a missile Iraq was developing, with a range of 600 miles and the potential to carry chemical warheads. This information was apparently gotten from one of the captured Iraqi generals. It looks like we're picking up some great deals in the Baath going out of business sales.
You may have noticed that I have inserted pictures into the free version of Blogger. It's not hard, really. Your ISP probably gives you a free website with some unintelligible URL, as mine does. All you need to do is stick your pictures there and use a little HTML magic to refer to them. Nothing says your text and pictures have to be on the same server. Haggai, Vegard -- let me know if you need help or space for images.
France has accused the US of an orchestrated disinformation campaign designed to stir up bad feelings toward them. <sarcasm>Well, it looks to me like the Bush administration has decided to spare their feelings by burying this story on the Saturday of a 3-day weekend.</sarcasm> US intelligence has found a dozen French passports. There's no word on their provenance -- they could be forgeries or they could be genuine.
Merde in France is probably the only source in France where this news will be reported. Maybe Radio Free Europe (I think it's Radio Liberty now) should start broadcasting in French.
One should approach a sixth marriage with the conviction that this time it's for real. Just like the previous five.
The leading causes of death among affluent Americans are murder, car accidents, and airplane crashes in remote tropical areas. Death by this third method is rarely permanently fatal.
Most of the planet is populated by models, doctors, tycoons, and randy teenagers. There are also a few policemen to arrest them and clergymen to marry and bury them.
You should not be surprised if previously unsuspected children show up from time to time.
Many people have twins they do not know about. This can be handy.
When in trouble, lie. You will always get caught at it, but this should not stop you.
I've been a bad boy lately, posting on other peoples' comments sections without doing anything on my blog. I've still been writing, you just have to look for it all over the place. Here's one I wrote in response to an article in The Edge of England's Sword.
Kris, speaking as a CPA, nothing would please me more than tax simplification and a general reduction of rates. My area of practice was taxation of investments and investors. Ever try reading the IRS code and regulations dealing with orginal issue discount (sec. 1272) or foreign currency transactions (sec. 988)? It's more scary than anything Stephen King ever wrote.
The underlying assumption in far too many tax arguments is that taxation has legitimate objectives beyond the collection of revenue needed for legitimate government functions. On the left, this leads to tax policies that are alleged to favor the poor by creating income transfers from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. On the right, it leads to such nonsense as "trickle down" and "job creation."
What is wrong with the notion that tax policy should be essentially neutral? That is to say, taxation should be structured so that the decision to spend or invest, hire or buy machinery, work overtime or go fishing, should not be influenced by the tax consequences of the decision? As a good capitalist, would you agree that the butcher and the baker, acting in their own self-interest, would notmake the most sensible decision for themselves? As a libertarian, would you argue that central planning through tax policies that favor or discourage one activity or another of leads to greater economic efficiency?
The insidious nature of tax policy is that not only does the government get to allocate the money it collects and spends, it also influences the spending of the pitiful remainder it leaves in private hands.
Dawn Breaks over Marblehead It looks like the French are starting to realize that opposing the #1 military power and excluding #2 may not be as good an idea as it seems on its face. Here is today's le Monde editorial:
Le Monde Editorial
Blair against Chirac
Crises have the advantage of clarifying things. The deep division across the European Union on the war in Iraq forces Europeans to answer a question long posed but always avoided: What do they want to do together?
In a space of two days, Tony Blair and Jacques Chirac have given opposing answers.
This no longer a controversy between European integrationists and Eurosceptics, as it was when the British Conservatives were in power. Tony Blair is the most "European" prime minister that Great Britain has had in a long time. He has stated repeatedly that he favors building Europe. He regrets the chances his predecessors missed. He wants his country to adopt the Euro as soon as possible so that it might play a full role in the Union. He has – to take the expression de Gaulle applied to France – "a certain idea of Europe." The problem for French diplomacy is that his idea does not correspond to theirs.
Tony Blair has just repeated this in public. He does not want a multi-polar world in which Europe would constitute one pole, along with the United States and other regional groupings. This is the vision that the French president repeated at the mini-summit on European defense, which took place April 29 in Brussels: a world with the United States, Europe, China, India, and Latin America. (Jacques Chirac curiously omitted mentioning Russia, either because it might be integrated with the European group, or because by itself it might be too weak to constitute a pole.)
Tony Blair finds this idea not only unrealistic but dangerous. He sees in it a revival of the "balance of power" system which produced the wars of the 19th and 20th centuries. He advocates a unipolar world in which the United States and Europe would be on the same side, that of the liberal democracies, ranged against the dangers represented by fundamentalism and terrorism.
Between Tony Blair and Jacques Chirac, which one has the means to make his views prevail? Having faced down hostile public opinion, Blair has doubtlessly been reinforced by the test of Iraq. Chirac has made progress with the idea of a "pioneer group," bringing Germany, Belgium, and Luxembourg along with him. However, Blair's concept is held by the majority in the expanded Union, as shown by the indignant or ironic reactions to the Brussels mini-summit.
The debate is not yet resolved. The "gang of four" will have a hard time imposing its views for the simple reason that there cannot be a European defense without the British, and therefore without a partnership with the United States. To be partners, there must be a mediator. The destructive attitude of the Bush administration is not a favorable omen.
It looks like the US Army confiscated several Kalashnikovs from the unarmed Iraqi demonstrators in Fallujah, according to the Times. Also in that article, one of the rocks the peaceful demonstrators were tossing had the bad luck to mistake itself for a grenade and detonate, injuring 7 soldiers.
It looks like the job offers are pouring in for former Iraqi Minister of Information Mohammed Saeed Al-Sahaf. This one, unlike those from American comedians, appears to be genuine. What a novel career path. Too bad I can't tell extravagant lies with a straight face. Of course, that would qualify me for many other positions.
Well, it looks like warblogging will be a little thin for a while, since most of the bad guys are either dead, in custody, hiding, or president of France. So on a personal note, we have just acquired a puppy, and I must say it is good to see the Boston Globe editorial and op-ed pages treated with the contempt they deserve. Take that, Oliphant! In your face, Kuttner!
It purports to describe the tragic incident where US soldiers fired upon a van that attempted to speed through a roadblock. Le Monde's supposed source was this article in the Washington Post. Note that while le Monde states there were no warning shots, the Post article states that there was first a warning shot, which may have been too late, then a round fired into the radiator, before the soldiers opened fire. The le Monde article also states that there were no warning signs posted, which was true at the time, but neglects to mention that the soldiers had motioned the van to stop. Based on information received from local residents, Fox News reported today that the women and children were forced into the van by Saddam's irregulars, and the driver was told that her family would be massacred if she stopped for the roadblock. Don't expect a correction from le Monde. It is sad to see that in their sympathy for the Saddam regime, this newspaper has adopted the standards of the Iraqi information ministry.
Here's another translation of an op-ed piece from the French, this time from the left-center Le Monde. What I don't get is the writer's argument that the UK can only preserve its national identity by subsuming it in a greater European identity, one which no doubt will partake generously of the French national identity. Is it wrong of me to think that the European Union, at least as far as France is concerned, is a campaign by Chirac and his bureaucrats to accomplish what Bonaparte and his generals could not? Or are they thinking that the EU will form some sort of hygienic barrier against the contagion of American culture? Maybe they will raise tariffs on hamburgers, Britney Spears CD's, and baseball caps. I'd support the second of the three, but from what I've heard of Euro-pop, they need an infusion of old-school R&B with maybe some Ramones.
The original is here. Please note also that the article quotes some sources that were originally rendered in English. Having been translated back and forth, they probably do not bear much resemblance to the original.
Paris-London: Restoring the Tie
1904-2004: The so-called "Entente Cordiale" should celebrate its one hundredth anniversary next year. But will it? For the moment, Franco-British relations are somewhat frosty, even if Jacques Chirac and Tony Blair, pretending not to notice, met privately the day after the Brussels summit.
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw had just publicly reiterated British grievances against the Elysée Palace, accusing them of having sabotaged the Anglo-Saxon efforts to give a cloak of legality to the invasion of Iraq.
The cross-channel popular press once more gave free rein to its aversion to the "frog-eaters," perhaps believing that Michelet was correct in saying, in his immortal "Tableau de la France": "The war of all wars, the fight of all fights, is that between France and England. The rest is incidental."
This is a judgement apparently shared by de Gaulle, since he was moved to say to Her Gracious Majesty's ambassador that their two countries "had always been at war, except when they were allied against a common enemy." Also, he had always opposed the entry of the United Kingdom into the Common Market, even if it meant provoking a trans-Atlantic crisis in 1963 by going against Kennedy's strong wishes.
The great difference between that crisis and the current one is that France then was somewhat isolated. At that time, Adenauer professed his solidarity with "the man of June 18" [de Gaulle] in the Elysée treaty, but the Bundestag also added a preamble diametrically opposed to the Gaullist vision. This preamble, much applauded by Washington, declared the necessity of Atlantic as well as European integration.
This time, Schroeder and Joschka Fischer had the comfort of finding a permanent member of the Security Council -- one owing its seat, it shuold be mentioned, to Churchill's insistence at Yalta -- that could support their people's profoudly-held pacifism, and that could encourage by its example the hitherto ultra-cautious Putin to raise the threat of a veto. Some went as far as to speak of the "Paris-Berlin-Moscow Axis." The General, who dreamed of a Europe extending "from the Atlanic to the Urals," must have felt the satisfaction in his tomb.
But he is doubtless less happy to hear the President of the Republic ceaselessly praise the UN -- which, to say the least, he did not treasure in his heart. And still less happy to note that France, instead of serving as the model for Eastern Europe, sees the ex-Warsaw Pact countries strongly supporting the coalition, at least verbally. The reason is simple: they feel safer with distant protectors than with neighbors of whom they have unpleasant memories.
It is not even certain that "the man of June 18' would even appreciate the estrangement between his successor and Perfidious Albion. Without her, after all, there would have been no free France, and he admired no one more than Churchill, his companion in the Liberation. He would have preferred instead that she forget what Churchill said to him before the Normandy Invasion: "General, if we must someday choose between Europe and greatness, we will choose greatness."
Truly, there is not much new here. Anthony Hartley quite rightly said in "England, a Self-Criticism" that in the last years of the 19th century and the Spanish-American War the British leaders were "resolved to do nothing that would offend the United States." Anthony Eden paid dearly for turning his back on this precept in the Suez crisis, and all his successors have proclaimed their wish for close ties with the White House. This did not always prevent squabbles, on Vietnam for example. Tony Blair himself has never hidden his reservations about George W. Bush's unconditional support for Sharon's policies.
Why then is he following so closely in the Iraq affair, ignoring the majority of his countrymen and a strong minority of his own party? Apparently, he is convinced in his heart that A) Saddam is a public menace, which is hard to argue with; B) that there is no way to eliminate him except through force; C) that he is in the best position, being sincerely attached to both his European and Atlantic commitments, to serve as a bridge between the Atlantic's two shores.
"DIVIDE UT IMPERES"
Nevertheless, can they be at once inside and outside, keeping the "special relationship" with the Americans? According to an insightful article by Prof. Niall Ferguson in the Financial Times of March 15 and 16, Britain has not gained much from the relationship, and it is really a bet that Europe will only protect its identity and those of its members if the United States stops dictating to it.
Another article, reprinted at length in the International Mail on March 6, shows the value of the stakes in this bet. The work of John C. Hulsman, a thinker with the Heritage Foundation, a heavyweight of the neo-conservative school and therefore also influential with the Bush adminstration, urges this administration to block the "neo-Gaullist attempt to construct an opposite pole to the United States." Otherwise, this would lead to the adoption of the Euro by London, the birth of a common foreign policy and common security worthy of the name, and the "greater harmonization of tax policies throughout the continent." The British have for a millenium taken the Roman tradition of "divide and rule."
Such a text should pursuade them that their great American daughter has taken up this slogan for herself. They will not preserve the identity of which they are so proud unless they help, without ulterior motives, to construct a European Union worthy of the name. Would it not be in the interest of France, which has so little in common with their military plans, to help them in this?
No one knows how the current war will end up, since its development bears so little resemblance to Washington's optimistic scenarios, but it is striking that Blair is opposed to the White House's pretension to having the upper hand in the reconstruction.
Regardless, it would annoy the Americans if their victory -- won at whatever price -- brought about a universal overlordship in which everyone must be given a share. It would be too much to expect of human nature to think that a world government, American or not, could guarantee the minimum of protection and fairness they have the right to expect.
Recently, Tony Blair has too often experienced the arrogance of the American neo-conservatives not to feel the need of a counterbalance. Sooner or later will feel the need to restore their ties, if they want to preserve their identities. The sooner the better.
André Fontaine
• ARTICLE PARU DANS L'EDITION DU 30.03.03
The same edition of Le Monde had a rather shallow thumbsucker about the disappearance of the world's languages. They managed to say not a word about the suppression in France of the Basque, Provençal, Breton, and Occitan languages.
Just to give a sense of proportion -- today was a recycling day. Every other week, we put out bottles, cans, and newspapers alongside the trash for separate pickup. Among the newspapers, there was one with a headline about Bush giving Saddam 48 hours to leave or face war. Could we please back off from how long this war is taking?
I just finished translating an article from le Figaro, a fairly conservative French newspaper. The original article can be found here. The thing that seemed odd to me is that it appears to be repeating Pat Buchanan's nonsense about a neocon-Zionist axis without once bringing him into it. Could there be an international anti-Zionist conspiracy? Here, judge for yourself.
George W. Bush and the American Jihad
James Woolsey has no doubts about it. After Afghanistan, the intervention against Iraq represents a new battle in World War IV. One which, like the third global conflict – that is to say, the Cold War – will see the triumph of "liberty over tyranny." The Director of the CIA under Bill Clinton, Democrat, but a fellow traveler with the neoconservatives who inspire George W. Bush, Republican, Woolsey recently repeated the great themes of the American Jihad before the American Enterprise Institute, one of the best-known centers of strategic research in Washington.
Contrary to what "Old Europe" says, the Marines and paratroopers fighting in Iraq do not have, as their first priority, the seizure of the oilfields. They have a political mission: they are trying to share the "American dream" with the whole Middle East, in a sort of inversion of the Communist domino theory of the Vietnam era.
Once Saddam Hussein has been eliminated, the US would be able to install a democratic regime ion Baghdad which could, as a kind of virtuous infection, serve as a model for the whole neighborhood. Little by little, each state in the region would have to accept those reforms which, having brought happiness and prosperity to the Iraqis, would also be demanded by the other oppressed peoples. The pressure of public opinion would leave the enemies of the US, notably Iran and Syria, no other choice. The friends of the US would also be kept in line, so that the alliance with Washington would not be contradicted by the maintenance of an archaic polity that gives rise to terrorism. Saudi Arabia could no longer play its double game, financing Osama bin Laden in the hope of preserving the fossilized monarchy.
As far as Egypt is concerned, it would be obliged at last to seriously attack the social injustices that serve as an excuse for corruption. Michael Ledeen, a security expert who shared the dais with Woolsey, insists: "Hosni Mubarek had better account for the $2 billion per year we send him, if he thinks Congress will be sending it to him forever."
As far back as 1998, some forty "hawks" sent an open letter to Bill Clinton stressing that Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction constitute a "present danger" to the United States. No more than a military parade against him would be needed, since that tyrant had a major weakness: he could not count on any popular support. "This tyrant's documented cruelty has been sufficient to discourage coup plotters, but has aroused the hatred of the people. Iraq is ripe for a general insurrection."
Among the signers of that letter were Donald Rumsfeld, now Bush's Secretary of Defense, and Paul Wolfowitz, now the number two man for the Pentagon. Defeating Saddam and replacing him with a western-style regime would have the effect of stabilizing the Middle East because, Wolfowitz explained, "Democracies don't go to war against other democracies."
At first prudent, George W. Bush hesitated no longer after the attacks of September 11. As the magazine Newsday put it, the president decided to "drain the swamps where terrorists breed." Afghanistan first, then Iraq. It matters little that the American expeditionary force seem suddenly less capable in the deserts of Iraq than in the mountains of Afghanistan. The noble objective makes triumph inevitable.
Woolsey states that since WWI, when Woodrow Wilson proclaimed the fourteen points of his crusade for democracy, America has never wavered: "In 1942, at the worst moment of the Second World War, Roosevelt and took the opportunity to draw up the Atlantic Charter, which proclaimed the universal rule of liberty. In the face of Soviet expansionism, we held to the same belief and won, just as we did in 1945. It will be the same with Iraq. History is on our side: in 1945, there were no more than 12 democracies in the world. Now, there are 120. And we respond to our French friends who accuse us of colonialist aims in Iraq that the Americans who landed on June 4, 1944 kept no more of the soil of Normandy than was needed to furnish a final resting place for their comrades who fell in the liberation of France."
But as far as the general interest is concerned, it is also the interest of Israel that the neoconservatives consider. In 1996, Richard Perle, who became a defense advisor after Bush's election in 2000, proposed to Benyamin Netanyahu, the new prime minister in Jerusalem, a plan to "secure the streets and borders of Israel." The essential element was to get rid of Saddam Hussein, the last Arab leader who, having defied the US, represented a mortal threat to Israel with his nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.
The result is that George W. Bush is the first American president since Richard Nixon for whom an Israeli-Palestinian settlement has ceased to be the central subject of Middle East policy. According to Newsweek, his own analysis is the same as Ariel Sharon's: Moral reasons: Yassir Arafat is a diabolical terrorist who has never wanted to make peace. Ideological reasons: as Likud says, the Arabs only understand force. Political reasons: the Jewish vote could be the key to Bush's reelection in 2004."
The old Middle East hands do not hide their skepticism. In a secret report, which the Los Angeles Times nevertheless received last month, a group of diplomats warned Colin Powell. The economic and social problems of the Middle East are so grave that establishing political reform favorable to the West is impossible. Anti-American sentiment among the Arab masses is so strong that free elections risk the creation of Islamic governments throughout the region. In the newspaper Newsday, Edward Walker, president of a Middle East research institute, formerly one of Bill Clinton's experts at the time of the Camp David negotiations, said with irony: "Democracy is not caught like a cold. It is a fruit that ripens slowly, at a different rate in each society."
Headquarters, Army in the Field
Camp near Fort Donelson, February 18th, 1862
Sir: Yours of this date, proposing armistice and appointment of commissioners to settle terms of capitulation, is just received. No terms except unconditional and immediate surrender can be accepted. I propose to move immediately upon your works.
I am very respectfully, your obedient servant
U. S. Grant
Brigadier General, Commanding
I've been trying to come to grips with the connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. I'd like to give the president some slack on this matter -- most of whatever information he has should probably remain secret. But let's take the worst case -- that there is not much connection between Saddam and bin Laden. This war may actually be a good thing, serving to counter the asymmetrical warfare strategy of the Islamic terrorist groups.
The pattern of the Islamic and other Arab terrorists has been for a group without distinct ties to an identifiable country to launch an attack, whether against a soft target (airports and the Olympics in the 1970's, hostage-taking and hijackings in the 1980's, and first WTC attack in the 1990's) or a military target. Each of these, if attributed to the forces of a state, would constitute a valid cause for war, either as a war crime against civilians or a direct attack on another state's military. By maintaining the separation between the terrorist group and a state that supports their goals, an unfriendly state is able to stage an attack without incurring a retaliation. The attack, in the past, was often treated as a criminal matter, rather than an act of war. If the first attack on the World Trade Center had been treated as an act of war, the second might not have taken place.
Sadly, there are abundant examples of Arab extremists adhering to this pattern. Syria, Iran, Iraq, and Lybia have supported stateless terror groups who share their goals, but because the actual attacks have been carried out by nationals of other countries (Lebanese, Palestinians, Saudis), they escape reprisal. Iraq's hands are by no means clean in this regard. Abu Nidal, whose suicide (murder?) occurred in Iraq last year, was supported by Iraq for decades. Terrorists of various kinds have received training, equipment, and funding from Iraq for many years. The notorious payments to suicide bombers are only the most public example.
The war on Iraq has served notice that the US is prepared to ignore the formal separation between a terrorist group and its sponsoring states, visiting retaliation on the sponsors. Already Syria is signaling that it will improve its behavior. Pakistan has switched sides abruptly, although we must also get them to stop the Kashmir infiltration and attacks. Iran is noticeably anxious, perhaps with reason. And if the Saudis take a lesson here, they may find the courage to rein in their Wahhabi clerics out of fear of worse things.
When you are president for life, term limits can be a bitch. Nevertheless, here is my program in the unlikely event that I become absolute ruler.
Possession of an accordion will be a misdemeanor. Possession of an accordion with intent to commit "Lady of Spain" will be a felony, punishable by bagpiping for a term of not less than one year.
Any female wishing to call herself "Cathy," or some variant thereof, will be required to spell it C-A-T-H-Y. Any deviation from this spelling will be punished by changing the offender's name to "Dumpy." Alisons and Michelles of the world, take note and amend your wicked ways.
Giant puppet heads will be set ablaze whenever encountered. Stiltwalkers are to be chainsawed.
It shall be illegal to commit topiary upon a poodle. Their fur is to be shorn to a uniform length.
Jimmy Carter, or St. James the Least, has written an op-ed for the New York Times against the impending war with Iraq. I simply cannot restrain myself from an ad hominem attack upon the man, who more than anyone else turned me from a Democrat to a Republican. Once I have finished venting, I will attempt to answer his arguments, if I can make them out. The subject is a serious one, even if the arguments are frivolous. It has already received a good fisking.
First, the nasty bits. In his introductory remarks, Carter praises his own term of office. He cites our previous allegiance to “alliances that resulted in wise decisions and mutual restraint." In other words, if two heads are better than one, a couple of hundred would be even better. Anyone who has ever served on a committee would hesitate over that one. Then he slips in this outrage: “As a Christian and as a president who was severely provoked by international crises…" Let's look at how he handled the provocations he received in his official capacity. It was during Carter's single term in office that the USSR invaded Afghanistan to restore the quisling government that had been overthrown. Carter arose in his wrath and boycotted the Moscow Olympics. Wow. His most memorable foreign policy victory, of course, was his handling of the Iranian revolution. You may remember the American embassy being taken over by Islamic "militants," American personnel taken and held hostage for 444 days, and the disastrous rescue attempt that killed eight Americans. True to form, this rescue attempt was designed in its most minute details by Carter. The man was so famous for micro-managing that he even took charge of allocating court time for tennis at the White House for his staff. He seems to stick with his foreign policy achievements, so there is no need to go into the simultaneous double-digit prime rate and unemployment rate, or gasoline rationing.
There has been a gentlemen's agreement among past presidents to refrain from criticizing the incumbent. Naturally, Bill Clinton, no gentleman, wasted no time in violating this practice. Carter has been less obvious but possibly more dangerous. Read Jonah Goldberg's piece on Carter's independent contracting in foreign policy.
The main part of his article is concerning the christian doctrine of the just war, and how the current situation does not meet the criteria.
First, he states: "The war can be waged only as a last resort, with all nonviolent options exhausted. In the case of Iraq, it is obvious that clear alternatives to war exist." Note the appeal to authority. In fact, the nonviolent options have been tried since the cease-fire was signed in 1991, and Iraq has violated the terms repeatedly. I suppose abject surrender is a nonviolent option, but everything short of that has been tried. Sanctions have not worked, inspections have not worked; only the credible threat of immanent force has seemed to have a partial effect. There is nothing "obvious" about Carter's supposed alternatives.
Second, he says: "The war's weapons must discriminate between combatants and noncombatants. Extensive aerial bombardment, even with precise accuracy, inevitably results in 'collateral damage.'" This argument twists the the just war doctrine to mean that no civilian casualties can be acceptable, which is utter nonsense. Our campaign in Afghanistan resulted in lots of dead Taliban and very few dead civilians, even though the enemy hid and intermingled with civilians in contravention of the rules of war. Our armed forces are better able to avoid civilian casualties than any other force in history. That is what is making the campaign so difficult and expensive -- if we resorted to WWII-style saturation bombing, it would be quicker, cheaper and immoral. We are avoiding civilian casualties at the risk of our own troops. If this effort and result is immoral, and all previous wars have done worse, this means that all wars have always been immoral. Carter's argument is a reductio ad absurdam, since it eliminates the possibility of a just war.
Third, he says: "Its violence must be proportional to the injury we have suffered. Despite Saddam Hussein's other serious crimes, American efforts to tie Iraq to the 9/11 terrorist attacks have been unconvincing." Carter misstates the test. Quoting from The Catholic Encyclopedia, the point is expressed differently: "... the question of proportion between the damages to be inflicted by war and the value of the national right menaced or violated must enter into consideration for the determination of the full justice of a title. Here we must take into account the consequences of such right being left unvindicated." We need not only measure the damage already inflicted upon us, but the damage we might sustain by allowing Iraq to rearm with chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. He also seems to imply that we should only be permitted to wage a retaliatory or defensive war. This, too, is a misstatement of the doctrine. The other legitimate reasons for waging war include offensive war for the enforcement of a right or punishment of a violation agianst oneself or against others.
Fourth, he says: "The attackers must have legitimate authority sanctioned by the society they profess to represent. The unanimous vote of approval in the Security Council to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction can still be honored, but our announced goals are now to achieve regime change and to establish a Pax Americana in the region, perhaps occupying the ethnically divided country for as long as a decade. For these objectives, we do not have international authority." This is just nonsense. The right to wage war rests with the state, not with any super-national organization. The US and Israel are the primary targets of Saddam and his accomplices. Iraq's target is not likely to be the Security Council, so it is a matter of complete indifference to China or Cameroon whether Saddam abides by the cease-fire agreement. They should not therefore be seen as constituting the proper authority.
Fifth, he says: "The peace it establishes must be a clear improvement over what exists. Although there are visions of peace and democracy in Iraq, it is quite possible that the aftermath of a military invasion will destabilize the region and prompt terrorists to further jeopardize our security at home." Carter seems to have invented this one, unless he means it as an elaboration of the proportionality test. In that case, the results, including the likely state of affairs after the war, is part of the evaluation of the damages of war in proportion to the seriousness of the cause. It is not a separate matter. We are not required to have perfect foresight of the results before acting. The mere existence of a possibility, without looking at its likelihood, should not serve to freeze us motionless. We already have terrorism going on -- if Carter has information that this is likely to worsen, he should share the evidence.
To paraphrase Chirac, Carter has missed a great opportunity to shut up. This piece is so preachy and poorly reasoned that it could only have appeared in the NY Times, or maybe the Boston Globe. Carter is an embarrassment to his country, but he could be the pride of the NYT's editorial staff. Maureen Dowd -- watch your back.
May I submit that much of what is ascribed to American arrogance is our stubborn refusal to recognize the superiority of our "betters," such as the French. If you treat someone as an equal who considers himself a superior, the alleged superior will have one of two reactions.
Case 1: The alleged superior publicly and overtly asserts his superiority.
Worst outcome: In this case, an assertion of equality will be seen as impertinence or insubordination. The alleged offender will be seen as an uncouth barbarian, unable to appreciate the benefits of civilized society. Maybe even a cowboy.
Best outcome: everyone has a laugh at himself and each other. Examples:
Oscar Wilde tours America, including the bustling metropolis of Leadville CO, to enthusiastic audiences.
Jim Thorpe, the astonishing Native American Olympian, receives the congratulations of the king of Sweden: King Gustav V told him, "Sir, you are the greatest athlete in the world!" To which Thorpe reportedly replied, "Thanks, king."
Case 2: The superior does not publicly and overtly assert his superiority, but believes it and wishes it to be tacitly acknowledged. This mismatch of perceptions and expectations of the two parties will result in surprises for both parties, with each reacting to the other in ways that seem inexplicable.
Worst outcome: Giant puppet heads, stilt-walkers, and other confused people clot the streets, and the French threaten a Security Council veto.
Best outcome: There isn't one, really. All we can hope for is that time will pass and memory will go with it.
A good friend of mine says she is going with another woman and two gay men (these two categories must encompass most of the audience) to see "Puppetry of the Penis," which I gather involves these two fellows stretching and pulling their marriage tackle into a variety of shapes. I told her I'll wait for the sequel -- "Ventriloquism of the Vagina."
Under US law, you cannot declare personal bankruptcy for 7 years after last doing so. The Left, it seems, declares moral bankruptcy every day. Michele at A Small Victory catches them at it. The upshot is that some Iraqi exiles begged to differ at an anti-war rally. Their point was that the killing has already started, war or no war; the only difference is that war is the only hope of ending the killing. They were, of course, refused permission to speak, and their signs, leaflets, and massacre photos were confiscated. Since the main moral objection to war is the suffering of the Iraqi people, one would expect that they might have something to say about it. This is nothing new for the Left. The Chinese lao gai is full of people who tried to organize independent labor unions. Why should the oppressed be permitted to speak for themselves when the Leading Party can do it for them? Read the comments from Jane, who is really not as clueless as her post makes her out to be.
It is not enough that the opposing arguments are silly. To see a cogent moral argument for liberating Iraq, see
One Hand Clapping. He puts it into the American tradition of the moral fight, as embodied by the Northern side in the Civil War. It is well and closely reasoned, and beautifully written. And besides, if a former career Army officer and ordained minister is not worth listening to on the just war doctrine, I defy you to find someone better qualified.
Today is the 10th anniversary of the first World Trade Center bombing. It was carried out by fundamentalist muslims, with the blessings of their cleric, Omar Abdel Rahman. The participants included an Iraqi who has never been caught. The Europeans say we are always late for the war; considering that this one started at least 8 years before we fought back, I guess they're right. The thing is not to be the first to arrive, but to be the last to leave.
You know what opinions are like -- everyone has one, and they all stink. So here's mine. I've been trying to figure out what the French are up to in this whole mess. Their fight to keep the US out of Iraq and Saddam away from the hangman has gone on long past the point where they could win, and yet they persist. Chirac has the reputation of a blunderer, but he doesn't seem to be alone in his position. Clearly there is some desire to keep the "hyper-puissance" of the US under some control. (Can we start calling France a hyper-pissant?) No French politician ever got turned out of office for ticking off the Americans. Going up against the US is also a way of emphasizing that Europe is going its own way -- with France leading, of course.
As we have heard so many times in the past, though, this time it's different. The US suffered its first foreign attack on its home soil since the Battle of New Orleans in 1815. For all the media bleating about "nervous" America, I'm hearing more anger. Immediately after hearing about Pearl Harbor, Churchill shook his head at what was clearly a Japanese misreading of our character: "I know the Americans, and it is much easier to infuriate them than to cow them." Bush has made it clear that no matter what hoops he has to jump through, Saddam is a dead man. So why not embrace the inevitable and get a share of the loot? Some have hinted that maybe the French and Germans have been dealing weapons to Iraq on the sly. Certainly they did so in the past. The Osirak nuclear facility that the Israelis destroyed in the 1980's was built by the French, and it can't have been a surprise to them that it would be used for producing atomic weapons materials. There was a "rogue" German company found guilty of selling chemical weapons equipment in the early 1990's, which earned the firm's president a staggering fine -- of some $30,000 US. But are they stupid enough to do the same thing twice? Even if they were, would they be stupid enough to make their dirty deeds traceable? I doubt it on both counts.
Here is my guess: The sanctions regime has not hurt Saddam and his inner circle. Far from it. Iraq never fully participated in the oil-for-food clause in the sanctions. Starving and suffering make great propaganda, as long as someone else is doing it. Saddam has been involved in smuggling Iraqi oil out and consumer goods into Iraq and has reportedly amassed a large fortune since 1991. A continuation of the "containment" idea would have its attractions. Saddam couldn't keep up his profiteering without some help from both inside and outside Iraq. Remember that Total-Fina-Elf is a huge producer of Iraqi oil. If they were producing much more than the sanctions can account for, be sure the Chirac government would know. It could not continue without a wink from Paris. An arrangement like this, being corrupt in origin, might be corrupt in its other manifestations. Who benefits? Well, after the invasion, maybe we'll find out.
The long sad saga of my "rebuilt" PC has come to a happy conclusion, although not what I thought it would be at first. The new motherboard is in and the machine runs beautifully. With DSL installed and the router doing its routing thing, life is good. It turns out that I may have waited to long to upgrade, as I wound up using a lot fewer of the old components than I had anticipated. Anything with an EIDE interface (except drives) was out -- PCI slots only. I had to solder together a new switch and wiring harness -- the old box used AT, while the new power supply is ATX. I had to "carve a new orifice" in the backside of the chassis to put the motherboard in -- they had put a pretty good sound card on the board, with the output jacks sticking up above it. Most oddly, there are no serial, mouse, or parallel ports, so I had to spring for a new USB keyboard and get an adapter for my printer.
I had an interview for a contract job at Fidelity in Merrimack, and it looks good. The job involves doing small Access/SQL things, working directly with the users.
Sigh. The new motherboard is dead. No video with 3 different graphics cards (2 AGP, 1 PCI), 2 different monitors/cables. Return is in process. Dude, next time you're getting a Dell.
Nothing new on the job front, although a couple of very desirable companies have sniffed at my resume on Jobfind.com since I put it out on Friday. Let's hope something good comes of it.
Meanwhile, with the distraction of the Superbowl out of the way, we can all go back to thinking about the coming war with Iraq. The Washington Post reminds us that there are about 50,000 Iraqis who have entered the US since roughly the time of the Gulf War, and about 3,000 are here illegally and nowhere to be found. Saddam's son Udai, in a television interview last week, made threats that hinted he may know something about at least a few of these, and what they intend. Whatever it may be, he bragged that it would exceed 9/11. If the Iraqis decide to inflict civilian casualties on the US during their regime's death spasms, it is difficult to see how the US would avenge this against Iraq, where the majority would be only too glad to see Saddam and his supporters dead, a desire which I expect the US to have no trouble satisfying. The worst case for all of us is that another atrocity would awaken a thirst for vengeance in the US that killing Saddam would not slake. Bad things could happen then.
My father served in the Army Air Corps in China and India. The Japanese sneak attack at Pearl Harbor, their atrocities in China and the Philippines, their brutalization of POWs (downed fliers were usually killed immediately, although a few were kept and starved), and their disregard of the conventions of war led to a different kind of war than was fought in Europe, where the full extent of Nazi atrocities was known later. With Saddam gone, the last thing his supporters, apologists, and enablers (Saudi Arabia, France, Palestinians, jihadis, et al.) want to see is the US furious, armed, and looking for something else to wreck.
Adventures in hardware continue. I had a queasy feeling when the motherboard package proclaimed that it was for Win98, ME, XP, & 2000 ONLY, as though this was something to be proud of. Go figure. I had no idea why a motherboard would support only the later Windows stuff and not Linux. Well, here's why: There is no parallel, serial, or PS2 port on the god-damned thing! There is a welter of USB ports in both 1.1 and 2.0 flavors, and that's what I guess I'm supposed to use. Last I checked, USB support is sketchy under Linux. Linux tends to support each device individually, not the whole USB regimen. Also, it is so far impossible to find a backwards USB adapter that would let me hook up my "legacy" devices. These things are not that old, but it looks like hardware has a generational cycle shorter than that of fruit flies. Plus it seems to be allergic to my GEForce 4 video card, which is about as new as you can get. Maybe it's too new for the motherboard, just as the other stuff is too old. Now please excuse me while I go throw a tantrum.
Well, that was exciting. I shouldn't have spoken about smoke in my last post, because I nearly succeeded in setting fire to the computer. If you are interested in replicating this feat, here's how. All you need to do is mount the floppy drive and then connect the power cable. The standard connector for a floppy is not a real obvious looking thing, and if you can't see what you're doing and are working by feeling around, you can stick it on just 3 of the 4 contacts. The outer 2 contacts, the black wires, are grounds. The other 2 are live current. These are supposed to be kept separate and distinct, but if you follow my example, you will see the wires start to smoke, melt, spark, and eventually flame. It's really a sight worth seeing, as long as someone else is supplying the hardware. I suspect from my inablity to get Win95, NT, or Linux installed without the damned thing ab-ending in the setup program that the motherboard was a loss before I did this, but I sure didn't help matters. A new motherboard is on the way, with an up to date CPU. They don't make Slot A boards anymore, I gather.
