Open Thread 05-17
News & views ...
Posted by b on February 12, 2005 at 05:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (51)
Billmon: 02/12
- Scientific Method: Science á la Lysenko ...
- Clean Sweap: Some things just vanish ...
Posted by b on February 12, 2005 at 05:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (5)
Deconstruction of Greatness
Last night Arthur Miller died.
Willy - 'All your life is wide open'
Biff - '*sharply* But, pop, I am a dime a dozen and so are you!!'
Willy - 'I AM NOT A DIME A DOZEN!!! I AM WILLY LOMAN AND YOU ARE BIFF LOMAN!!' *hits Biff*
Biff - *tries to go at Willy but Hap is holding him back, struggling, shouting* ' I AM NOT A LEADER OF MEN, WILLY AND NIETHER ARE YOU!! You were never anything but a hard-working drummer who landed in the ashcan like all the rest of them!!! I am one dollar an hour, Willy! I am not bringing home any prizes anymore!!! and you're going to stop waiting for me to bring-'
Willy - 'You miserable spiteful MUTT!! *throws jacket in Biff's face*
Death of a Salesman
He reflected the false self-perception of The American way of life to the audience of his plays. In this sense, his work, the deconstruction of greatness, is unfinished.
Posted by b on February 11, 2005 at 11:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (9)
Beam in the Eye
In an earlier post about the new nationwide Pentagon Channel, we pointed to the possible 1984-like consequences of a Department of Defense payed and edited national TV channel.
A fresh New York Times report on military TV emphasizes my concerns.
Back January 24, the NYT business and media sections already had reported, but not criticized, the new channel.
Military Channels Are Competing on Cable TV.
(now locked up in the pay archive - a freed copy can be found in someones blog)
Americans want their military TV.
...
The Military Channel, the Military History Channel and the Pentagon Channel are soliciting viewers with similar interests (war, for example) ..
...
The third military network, the Pentagon Channel, is run by the Department of Defense and includes programs called "Army Healthwatch" and "In Step With Fort Riley."
...
"Sometimes we have special features that educate and help the morale," [the Pentagon speaker] added, referring to archival footage from old battlefields, including clips from the Korean War. ..
...
The Pentagon Channel should not pose a credible threat because it runs as a public service without advertising. ..
Back then NYT's concern was limited to advertising revenue and competition to private channels. There is "no credible threat" to be seen.
One probably would have hoped to read some more critical, liberal reflections in the paper of record.
Today the NYT again reports on a new nationwide military TV network. Now the article includes several quite critical voices.
It is "a very clumsy way" "to build pride in a country that badly needs it," says one critic. And it is "more important to show what is really happening". Another expert even opines that "television already has enough appeals to patriotism".
Thanks to the NYT reporter and his editors to have the stomach to cite such liberal voices, criticizing such military propaganda efforts.
Unfortunately this article is not in the national, but the international section. It is not about The Pentagon Channel in the United States but it critisizes Russia.
Red Star Over Russian Airwaves: Military TV Network.
Television in Russia these days is already compared to Soviet-like agitprop. So what to make of the country's newest network?
On Feb. 20 the Defense Ministry plans to begin broadcasting its own national television channel called Zvezda, or Star, offering a blend of pride and patriotism, made in Russia.
...
The defense minister, Sergei B. Ivanov, recently said its purpose was to provide "effective informational and ideological influences," not least, he made clear, among those draft-age young men who now go to great lengths to avoid military service.
...
Zvezda's imminent arrival has already stirred criticism of another lurch toward a Soviet-like past.Vladimir Pozner, a prominent television host of one of the last remaining political talk shows, "Vremena" on First Channel, ridiculed the idea as a waste of money.
...
"It is supposed to build pride in a country that badly needs it," he said. "It is a very clumsy way to do it."Irina Petrovskaya, television critic for the newspaper Izvestia, said Zvezda represented a resurgence of the state's paternalistic attitudes toward its citizenry: " 'We will show you how to love the Motherland.' It is more important to show what is really happening in this country."
In her view, Russian television already has enough appeals to patriotism. "If they overdo it, the effect could be the opposite," she said. "Some people will just turn off their TV's."
Lets hope people will really turn off their TV.
But until the reporters and editors of the NYT take off their US-centric glasses and reread and reflect 1984 and Matthew 7:3-5, their product may not be preferable either.
Posted by b on February 11, 2005 at 08:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)
Billmon: Room at the Top
Posted by Jérôme à Paris on February 11, 2005 at 01:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (8)
Billmon: Credit Where Credit is Due
I think it's my duty to listen to AdolphRush
Posted by Jérôme à Paris on February 10, 2005 at 06:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (8)
Billmon: Trouble Back in Bedrock
Posted by Jérôme à Paris on February 10, 2005 at 04:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (18)
Billmon: Anatomy of a Scam
Billmon investigates the There Is No Trust ScamPosted by b on February 10, 2005 at 02:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)
Billmon: Dr. Pangloss Rides Again
LinkPosted by b on February 10, 2005 at 12:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)
Open Thread
The old one is not full, but it's already quite far down...
Please go take a look at my last post on China below. For some reason, it was published below Bernhard's last piece.
Posted by Jérôme à Paris on February 10, 2005 at 04:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (60)
There Is No Trust
Hi barfly. Have a taste here
Assets at the end of December 1986 were about $47 billion; by the end of September 2004, assets totaled about $1,635 billion.
Social Security Income, Outgo, and Assets
not bad - and now take a nip of this drink
By law, all income to the trust funds that is not immediately needed to pay expenses is invested, on a daily basis, in securities guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the Federal government.
Social Security Administration Trust Fund FAQs
yeah, nice one - now this one is quite strong
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.
US Constitution, Amendment XIV, Section 4.
and to feel even better and assured
I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.
US Constitution, Article II, Section 1, The Presidential Oath of Office
Tasted good so far? Hmm, I am sooo sorry
Some in our country think that Social Security is a trust fund -- in other words, there's a pile of money being accumulated. That's just simply not true. The money -- payroll taxes going into the Social Security are spent. They're spent on benefits and they're spent on government programs. There is no trust. We're on the ultimate pay-as-you-go system -- what goes in comes out. And so, starting in 2018, what's going in -- what's coming out is greater than what's going in. It says we've got a problem. And we'd better start dealing with it now. The longer we wait, the harder it is to fix the problem.
Office of the Press Secretary: President Participates in Class-Action Lawsuit Reform Conversation, February 9, 2005
Impeach Bush.
Posted by b on February 9, 2005 at 07:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (70)
May You Live in Interesting Times
there has been a lot of gnashing of teeth and worrying about China recently, based on, if I don't forget anything:
- China holding a growing quantity of T-Bills and dollar reserves (US$609.9 billion at the end of 2004, up 51.3 percent from a year ago
- China becoming the factory for the world, undercutting everybody and threatening standards of living around the globe, especially in rich countries that are losing completely their manufacturing capacity and jobs, and thus their independence
- China beginning to play oil games in Iran, Venezuela, Russia, even Canada and threatening US long term supplies
- meanwhile, the US is busily spending the taxes of today's citizens and their kids in an increasingly futile war in Iraq, while cutting taxes to the rich and squeezing the middle classes.
Guess what? China is currently scared to death of the US. They see themselves as being in an unpleasantly weak position, much worse than the US.
So, who's right? Both, maybe?
Take a look at it from China's perspective:
On the energy front
- China has gone from being largely self-sufficient to being the second biggest oil consumer (5.5 mb/d, after the US with close to 20 mb/d) and soon, the second biggest importer of oil (BBC article, 1.8 mbd, vs 11.8 mbd for the US)
- more worrying, they have no stable suppliers nearby like Europe does (Russia, despite its instability, can only export its oil to continental Europe by pipe or to "internal" seas like the Baltic or the Mediterranean) - Indonesia has become a net importer (and is thinking of dropping out of OPEC), Russia has decided against building a direct pipeline to China and chosen instead a pipeline to the Pacific which will be accessible to other buyers; the Middle East, well, is the Middle East, and they face stiff competition on the market from Japan.
- even worse, from their perspective, they have little physical control over their lines of supply. Oil from the Middle East or Australia has to go through choke points like the Hormuz Straits or the Malacca Straits which are either in highly unstable regions, controlled by the US Navy or both.
Their strong economic growth (9% or so in recent years) generates a similarly strong growth of energy demand and, in current circumstances, an even larger increase of net imports. This evolution appears to have taken the Chinese by surprise, and they are engaging in a wide-ranging, but sometimes still awkward, diplomatic push to create or improve relations with oil producers in all regions of the world (including, as linked to above, in the Americas). Their most likely suppliers in the future will be Russia, Kazakhstan (thanks to the pipeline they are trying to build) and the Middle East, not easy partners to deal with for them either...
On the electricity side, the country has had trouble keeping up with strong demand growth in recent years, despite gigantic projects like the controversial Three Gorges project or development of nuclear plants (see my last two Eurokos diaries for recent news on that topic). Most of the production is coming from coal-fired plants, which creates problems of its own:
- railways are horribly congested (according to some estimates, 80% of railway capacity goes to coal transport already)
- air pollution is horrendous (7 of the 10 most polluted cities in the world are in China) and it is becoming a worldwide problem - it is estimated that a significant - and growing - portion of world mercury pollution in the air comes form Chinese coal-fired plants (30% in the US, for instance).
- things are going to get worse: according to the official planning agency, China's installed capacity is set to grow from 380 GW today to 2400 GW in 2020 - that requires the equivalent of building 10 nuclear reactors per month...
On the economic front
- while most of the debate in the US is about the trade deficit with China (more than USD 150 billion in 2004, with Chinese exports to the US running at 6 times the value of US exports to China) and the corresponding pressure to devaluate the renminbi against the dollar to reduce China's price advantage, the Chinese see that their trade, on the whole, is almost balanced, with a much smaller surplus with Europe and a large deficit with Asia almost compensating for the giant surplus with the US - and they see no real need to revalue their currency on pure economic grounds (the desire not to piss off their biggest client may push them to do something, but this is another issue).
- while their 9% growth sounds downright giddy to us, it is absolutely necessary to absorb the huge influx of population from the rural areas to the booming urban/industrial regions (one worker in 6 - 115 million - is currently a migrant) without generating too much social tension, the nightmare for the regime which knows that only large scale domestic unrest can weaken it. Any slowdown in growth, whether from inflation, shortages of electricity, oil or other commodities (China currently consumes almost half of the world's cement and more than 60% of construction cranes) creates real political risks for the leadership of the country and, more to the point, risks of large scale domestic turmoil.
- this growing dependency on imports for many kinds of goods and commodities is creating totally new problems for the Chinese. They must learn to engage the rest of the world (after a long period of relative passivity, except on very specific issues like Taiwan or North Korea), and to do it in a position where they do not hold all the cards
- the countries that have the resources that China needs are not necessarily those that are in the sphere of influence of China, or need anything Chinese, or have Chinese diasporas to help create links; and they most certainly have stronger relations with the USA (also quite often a major importer of the same commodities) or with the former European colonial powers. Thus again, the necessity to make the country more visible on the world stage, and to acknowledge co-dependencies or dependency, i.e. weakness, which is not pleasant when you have a traditional Great Power approach to international diplomacy.
On the diplomatic front
This new task for their diplomacy comes at a time when the Chinese already have to juggle many balls in a complex diplomatic ballet:
- Taiwan and Hong Kong are very specific issues for China that take out a lot of their attention on the world stage and their relentless determination not to have Taiwan recognized as another independent country by any one else, reduces their ability to get other things from other countries,
- North Korea, of course, is a headache for everyone (especially now that it has officially admitted to having nuclear bombs...), including the Chinese...
- their many-years-long campaign to join the WTO has also required a lot of efforts and full - and by necessity constructive - engagement with the US and the EU which held most of the cards: remember the previously yearly exercise by the US to decide whether China deserved to get the "Most Favored Nation" (i.e. normal) trading status...
- trade negotiations (like those accompanying the recent lifting of the textile quotas which is expected to lead to a Chinese domination of the sector worldwide) are also a permanent fixture of a country whose trade is marked by either strong surpluses (the US, Europe to a lesser extent) or large deficits (Asia, commodity exporters like Australia or the Middle East)
- they are now lobbying the European Union to give up its (mostly symbolic) ban on export of weapons (see this long Financial Times article today on that topic) - a ban put in place in 1989 after the Tienanmen events and which puts them together with a couple of other countries around the world, like Burma or Zimbabwe, thus giving them a "pariah" status which they resent a lot. I cannot write much about the military situation of the country, but it certainly feels weak on the Navy side, which it is trying to build up quickly, starting from a fairly small base. In any case, it is not ready for any kind of confrontation with the US at this point in time.
What comes out of this is that China is rushing towards several walls at the same time, and we're standing either on the wall or just behind, so it's not clear who will get hurt most...
- the growing demand for resources is soon going to bring China in conflict with pretty much around the world, starting with the most profligate consumer of all, the US. Expect strong price rises, and more or less open conflicts to try and control access to these resources;
- the pace of growth itself seems difficult to sustain much longer in view of the scale of the Chinese economy today - that growth has a worldwide impact - on commodity prices as indicated above, trade patterns, reserves, currency movements, and jobs everywhere and issues of scarcity are going to come to the fore and limit that growth. This will lead to havoc internally (the economic migrants) and externally (tensions over resources, pollution, shipping lanes, etc...).
- expect China to play a much more visible role on the world scene, pretty much against their desires because it is likely that they will be embroiled in many different conflicts or contentious issues.
So anyway, while the US have squandered theirs get ready for the Chinese curse ("may you live in interesting times...")
Posted by Jérôme à Paris on February 9, 2005 at 07:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (18)
Billmon: doubleplusungood refs unpersons
doubleplusexlusive at Whiskey Bar
Posted by Jérôme à Paris on February 9, 2005 at 05:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (8)
SPECANNOUNCE
The U.S. military is to beam its own news coverage to millions of Americans.
Moving on from its phase of embedding journalists, or as some would say, 'a policy of restricting and contolling the flow of information,' the Pentagon will now produce and disseminate the news itself. It will be beamed to the public at no charge. The service will emanate from what is known as the Pentagon Channel, an internal public relations television unit within the Department of Defense. It was set up nine months ago.
The government-run TV service will be channeled to the public through EchoStar Communication's Dish Network which will offer the Pentagon Channel to its more than 11 million viewers on a no-cost basis. Programming will appear on the network's public interest channels and will operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
Dish viewers will be kept up to date with current military news and information including Department of Defense news briefings, military news, interviews with top defense officials, and short stories about the work of military people. ...
Pentagon to broadcast to millions of U.S. homes
The very same story with the, soon to be broadcasted, special Pentagon touch on defenselink.mil
---
SPECANNOUNCE
Inpartyobs doubleplusexlusive pics of doubleplusnew Victory Tank 180 Light! MiniPax proudwise state 2,384 units produced! Introduce next India autumn offensive. Combatfeats: 1 BB AutoCannon, 2 BB Medium AutoGuns, 1 Vic Flamethrower, 2 Ingsoc ElectroGuns, 1 Vic NerveGas Sprinkler.
Experiments show 231 Eurasia POW/min killrate! Congrats MiniPax! Oceania gloryvic plusclose!
INGSOC
---
The first initiatives to set up a military propaganda organization were in 1935-1936, principally by the Ministry of Propaganda. There was also a general consensus within the Wehrmacht command on the need for such an organization. The background to that perception was the broad agreement that the failure of German propaganda in World War I had had a decisive impact on the collapse of the German rear and had led to the German defeat.
...
Film footage was forwarded directly to the ministry so that it could be incorporated into the weekly newsreels shown in movie theaters. The Germans were well aware of the topical importance of the news and did their utmost to dispatch the materials as quickly as possible.
Wehrmacht Propaganda Troops and the Jews (PDF)
Posted by b on February 9, 2005 at 05:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (15)
Billmon: Getting It Up
Follow the money trail of getting it up.
Posted by b on February 9, 2005 at 02:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (9)
Billmon: Unintentional Irony Department
Posted by b on February 9, 2005 at 11:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (19)
Fresh Open Thread
News & views, dreams & visions.
Posted by b on February 9, 2005 at 03:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (42)
Billmon: Yabba Dabba Doo!
Mr. Gannon and the Bedrock Corp ...
Posted by b on February 9, 2005 at 03:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (7)
Not so Useless Speculation II
An few days ago there was a post about barfly SusanG's search for the background of Jeff Gannon - a fake White House reporter involved in the Winston/Plame case.
Atrios suggested Jeff Gannon is not the mans real name. Searching the Internet domain name registrations related to Jeff Gannon resulted in some finds of very conservative opinion pages of him plus some sex domains. The company name those sites were registered for, turned up at an address of a private house and several cross checks actually found that Jeff Gannon is Jim Guckert. Here is his private AOL homepage - a hypocrite when you compare his lifestyle to his Jeff Gannon opinions.
Still there are many open questions:
- Who pays this man?
- Why does he have a prominent/preferred role in White House press conferences?
- How did he get his hands on a secret Plame / Wilson / Nigeria Uranium paper?
Some hundred people have worked on the issue via several blogs. This is a great success for the blogsphere and maybe a real new kind of journalism.
Go Susan, go. You are writing media history here.
Posted by b on February 8, 2005 at 07:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (35)
Billmon: Survival of the Fittest
Yes, the rats are leaving.Posted by b on February 8, 2005 at 06:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (7)
Billmon: Private Parts + Listening Skills
Posted by b on February 8, 2005 at 03:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)
Making Friends
Juan Cole is ripping Jonah Goldberg a new one and Rafsanjani, ex-president of Iran and possible winner of this years election, is following the lead in making friends.
In his interview with USA Today he has some juicy things to say:
Slavin: Are you concerned about all the tough statements from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other U.S. officials in recent days?
Rafsanjani: Miss Rice talks very tough. We have gotten used to this nonsense. Miss Rice is a bit emotional about this, and we predicted that she would have a more emotional approach to this.
Slavin: Do you see any difference between her and former Secretary of State Colin Powell?
Rafsanjani: They (Rice and Powell) might be different in the way they talk, but the policies of the United States are decided somewhere else.
...
Slavin: You've said Secretary of State Condi Rice is very tough. What about President Bush?
Rafsanjani: Condi Rice talks tough but she cannot be tough herself.
Slavin: And Bush?
Rafsanjani: President Bush also has slips of the tongue often. One could really write a full editorial comprising these slips. I do not think it is correct or appropriate for someone in that high position as the president of the United States (to talk that way). The United States is a big country but unfortunately it seems it has the brain of a little bird not befitting the greatness of the country.
It's about time someone said this loud and clear. Can you hear the laughter in all but one capitols of the world? People want to talk to the grown-ups, not the kiddie-bird.
Posted by b on February 8, 2005 at 11:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (20)
Useless Statistical Almanach n°3 - US Budget Edition
the presentation of the new US federal budget is the ideal time to show what a difference a few *innocuous* hypotheses can make on your headline...
Luckily, the BBC cuts through the bullshit:
(a few quotes after the fold)
The budget document projects the deficit will rise to $427bn this year, before starting to decline.Military spending will, however, rise 4.8% to $419.3bn in 2006.
The budget does not include the cost of running military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, for which the administration is expected to seek an extra $80bn from Congress later this year.
(...)
Another key policy spending missing from proposals is the cost of funding the administration's proposed radical overhaul of Social Security provision, the federal programme on which many Americans rely for their retirement income.
Some experts believe this could require borrowing of up to $4.5 trillion over a 20-year period.
Neither does the budget include any cash to purchase crude oil for the US emergency petroleum stockpile.
(...)
The deficit, partly the result of massive tax cuts early in Mr Bush's presidency, has been a key factor in pushing the US dollar lower.
The independent Congressional Budget Office estimates that the shortfall could shrink to little more than $200bn by 2009, returning to the surpluses seen in the late 1990s by 2012.
But its estimates depend on the tax cuts not being made permanent, in line with the promise when they were passed that they would "sunset", or disappear, in 2010.
Most Republicans, however, want them to stay in place.
And the figures also rely on the "Social Security trust fund" - the money set aside to cover the swelling costs of retirement pensions - being offset against the main budget deficit.
Who knew the British were anti-American? Or more to the point - who would have believed such an opinion could be brought so quickly?!
Posted by Jérôme à Paris on February 7, 2005 at 04:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (30)
Go Ellen, Go!
Note for sailer:
In a few hours Ellen Mc Arthur will have finished a one-hand, non-stop sail around the world in a record time of 71 days and some 14 hours.
Incredible how she can make herself to bear such agony and to achieve such satisfaction.
Posted by b on February 7, 2005 at 02:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (7)
Tasteless Prostitution
From the White House Inaugural Menu, 2005
Second Course
Pilgrim's Pride "Whole Butter Basted Turkey," brined in "Coca-Cola" and
Stuffed with Sweet and Savory Dunkin Donuts "Old-Fashioned Cake Donut" Stuffing
(Inspired by Pioneer Lonnie Pilgrim, Chair, Pilgrim's Pride Corp,
Ranger Barcley T. Resler, Vice President Government Relations Coca-Cola and Dunkin Donuts)
The rest of the menu (click the pic) is even worse.
How can any President in any country prostitute himself in such a degrading way? What is next? Official advertising on US Dollar notes (Rangers only! Contact Karl R. for further information)?
BTW: The chief chef of the White House, inable to meet the stylistic requirements of the first lady, was fired when he protested the menu.
Why are such stories believable?
Posted by b on February 7, 2005 at 11:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (14)
Russia Gives Up On Dollar
LondonYank has been running the Dollar Dump series (more links within that last diary) about Central Banks giving up on the dollar, and today we have news of one more:
Russia is ending its de facto dollar peg and moves to align rouble with euro
Russia said yesterday it had abandoned efforts to tie the rouble's movement closely to the dollar and switched to shadowing both the euro and the US currency.The move heightened expectations that other countries operating de facto dollar pegs, such as China, could follow suit.
With 81 per cent of Russia's oil exports currently sold to Europe, the move also provoked fresh speculation that Russia could decide to denominate its oil in euros. Russia is the world's second-largest oil exporter, behind Saudi Arabia.
If it becomes common wisdom that the dollar can only go down (as it seems is happening now), the temptation to be the first out and limit your losses becomes irresistible; this then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy (big dollar holders selling means a weakening of the dollar, thus encouraging others to do the same; this can easily turn into a run on the currency).
Alan Greespan still holds some influence on the markets and is now using his credit to fight this trend (he managed to push the dollar up 2 cents with upbeat comments on the twin deficits and the dollar) but this will be an uphill struggle if Central Banks and portfolio managers start reallocating oh-so-slowly but irreversibly their holdings towards less dollars and more euros.
As I've written two months ago in this diary, the fundamental problem of the US economy is that it is consuming more than it produces - it thus requires foreign goods and/or foreign savings to quench the insatiable demand for more goods, more stuff, more, more, more... This has been going on for so long that it seems "natural", but it is now reaching the limits of the trust that the rest of the world has in the word of the US government - especially when that government has been so busy bombing, blaming or bullying everybody else on the planet and has thus significantly drained the credit of the US around the world...
Get ready for the dollar crash is all I can say.
Posted by Jérôme à Paris on February 5, 2005 at 04:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (85)
Billmon: Unsound Methods
Posted by b on February 5, 2005 at 04:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (9)
Open Thread 05-14
News, views, opinions ...
Posted by b on February 4, 2005 at 01:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (89)
State of the Union
Pay back for his staunch religious-conservative supporters as Bush condemns gay-marriage:
For the good of families, children and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage.
WaPo transcript of the speech.
But some kissing with best friend Lieberman is not (yet) unconstitutional. Condi would be furious, if she would know what her husb- is really risking.
Posted by b on February 3, 2005 at 04:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (18)
No Manhood Left Anyway
US Marine Lt. Gen. James Mattis sez:
"It is fun to shoot some people. Actually, its a lot of fun to fight. You know, it's a hell of a hoot. I like brawling."
"You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for 5 years because they didn't wear a veil," Mattis continued. "You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them."
Military folks in the audience laughed and clapped hands.
via NBC San Diego
Posted by b on February 3, 2005 at 07:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (72)
Billmon: The Magic Ballot
Ballots in magic space between realpolitik and democratic ideals ...Posted by b on February 1, 2005 at 11:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (35)
Whale Oil
A really good comment from a thread at Crooked Timber about the economic validity of whaling in the nineteenth-century:
My latest column at “Whale Central Station” is up, exposing the leftist myth of finite whale supplies.
1. Whales breed. Therefore, the potential supply of whales is unlimited.
2. As whaling technology improves, our ability to exploit this limited supply of whales becomes ever-greater. A few years ago, 40 whales in a four year trip was regarded as good going. Modern Norwegian whalers capture and process 40 whales a month. All of the estimates of the “sustainability” of the whale-based economy were put together before such inventions as exploding harpoons. And remember that the supply of whales is self-replenishing. Leftists seem not to understand that whales have sex.
3. Reducing whaling would cost vast amounts of money and destroy our economy; credible estimates would suggest that without whale-oil lamps we would all sit around in the dark until we die. This money would better be spent on providing aid to the Inuit.
4. We can’t give the Inuit property rights over their whales to help them manage the speed of whaling, because that’s just politically impractical.
5. Arrrrr!
Posted by b on February 1, 2005 at 08:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (19)
Yes, Another Open Thread
Posted by b on February 1, 2005 at 03:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (108)