Economist Stephen Roach of Morgan Stanley looks at the quality of newly created jobs in the US: America’s Job-Quality Trap

An unprecedented hiring shortfall has crimped the economy’s income generating capacity as never before.

…While there has been some improvement on the hiring front in recent months, the quality of such job creation has been decidedly subpar.

…from the trough of the last recession in November 2001 through June 2004, private nonfarm payrolls have now risen a paltry 0.2%. This stands in sharp contrast to the nearly 7.5% increase recorded, on average, over the same 31-month interval of the six preceding recoveries.

Cont. reading: “What are we going to do about it?”

The Guardian runs a well researched story on Jonathan Keith “John” Idema getting busted for running a private torture prison in Kabul where among others “three men strapped to the ceiling and hanging by their feet” were found: The man who thinks he’s George Clooney. A story of today’s Kabul

The Guardian presents Idemas quite colorful background and suggests that he was hunting for US rewards on some Al Qaida leaders.

Here are some additional details around that story. Warning: Use your tin foil hat while reading.

Cont. reading: Tin Foil Hat Required

Here´s some room to comment on Billmons new piece.

… warming up for the next Billmon post

Reasons for the “New Imperialism” (1)

– Economics was the most important single factor in this “New Imperialism”. Much of this economic emphasis was brought about by the industrial revolution, which created large surpluses of European capital and heavy demands for raw materials. Additionally it brought about the accumulation of major european countries which sought investment abroad.

– Nationalism was another powerful factor. Social Darwinism, with it´s concept of “Survival of the Fittest” and the obligations of the “White Man´s Burdon” made popular by the Englishman Rudyard Kipling contributed to the spirit of nationalism in extending colonialism. There was also political prestige in having colonies as imperialism became a race to aquire more in the spirit of nationalism.

– A third reason for this “new” imperialism was military. Military organizations in each major countries wielded great political power, and they emphazied the need, whith their respective governments, of controlling strategic areas and establishing key military bases.

– A fourth reason was humanitarian/religious, which often became intertwined with nationalism.

(1) “NEW IMPERIALISM (1870 – 1914)” Lecture Notes by Professor Henry, William Paterson University

Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: “In God is our trust.”

The Star Spangled Banner Francis Scott Key, adopted as National Anthem 1931

The template work on Moon of Alabama is finished for now and the access to this site has stabilized. If there are still problems or errors please let me know. You also may want to comment on this site or suggest changes or features.

While expecting hopefully new Billmon pieces at the Whiskey Bar, it would be nice to have some appropriate pieces from commentators up for discussion. Just drop me an email with your writing attached and I will be glad to post it.

Thanks

Your comments about this?

here anything goes

As Helpful Spook has posted in an earlier comment, a German TV magazine, Report Mainz, will today report on child abuse in US prisons in Iraq. Their press announcement (in German) refers to a statement form an ICRC official in Genvea: “Between January and Mai of this year we have registered 107 children during 19 visitations at 6 different locations. All those location were under control of coalition troops.”
The magazine did get its hand on an internal UNICEF document. There it is mentioned, that UNICEF is trying to get access to a special prison for children, errected by coalition forces. In July 2003 UNICEF requested to get access to this prision which was denied. “Unsufficient security in the area of the prison” forstalled visits by independend observers “since December 2003”.
An Aljazeera Reporter who had been imprisoned in Abu Graibh describes to the magazine how a 12 year old girl was bashed by US soldiers. The journalist reports of a prison for children: “When they did bring me to my prison cell, there was a camp for children, young, under age of puberty. For sure there were hundreds of children in this camp.”

Author Rick Pearlstein took notes (via Brad De Long) at a Seymour Hersh lecture: ´He said he had seen all the Abu Ghraib pictures. He said, “You haven’t begun to see evil…” then trailed off. He said, “horrible things done to children of women prisoners, as the cameras run.”.´

Sgt. Samuel Provance, of the 302nd Military Intelligence Battalion has witnessed specific cases and talks about it.

The UNICEF document Report Mainz has explains the outcome: “The percieved unjustified imprisonment of male Iraqis including juveniles … is becoming the main reason for the growing frustration of Iraqi adolescent and a potential for the radicalisation of this population group.”

As Richard Clarke writes in his book review on “Imperial Hybris”: “The Iraq invasion gave a new cause to the jihadists and new evidence to Arab militants that Americans are the “new crusaders” – i.e., foreign infidels bent on conquest. The result has been more recruits, more suicide bombers and more money to the jihadists.”

The child abuse by coalition troops will give something more valueable to the jihadists. A fresh generation of fighters, already deeply motivated to defeat their enemies at any costs.

by ck

Josh Marshall posted part one of a long interview with Senator Biden. It covers a lot of territory, but there are two main themes:
One is the failure of the BushCo NeoCons to differentiate between Al Qaeda Gangsterism and State Sponsored Terrorism.
The other is the need for an American Foreign Policy based on Enlightened Nationalism — as Senator Biden calls it.
I’ve described it as Enlightened Self Interest — a term used by Walter Simon, a history professor of mine back in the 1960’s.

Before the invasion of Iraq, I tried to formulate some arguments about this, using the Clinton Doctrine of Robust Internationalism as a contrasting framework the Bush Doctrine of Arrogant Unilateralism. That both schools can invoke Wilsonianism as justification is evidence of the complexity of this issue, and the mixed legacy of Woodrow Wilson.

Excerpts from the interview:

I think you’d see a Kerry administration being willing to exercise force in the face of — if two conditions pertained — One, that the exercise of the force was likely to result in the outcome that we were seeking. The difference between exercising force in Kosovo and force in Somalia is that we did not have the physical wherewithal and the likely allies to be able to succeed in the exercise of that force. …

It’s not preemption. It is a new standard for when you basically forfeit your sovereignty as a nation-state [if] you’re engaged in genocide. So, every place with genocide should we intervene? No There has to be the practical capacity to do so. …

Second thing is, so there’s kind of a new standard that has emerged, that I think is the combination of what I refer to as this enlightened nationalism, that we operate in our national interests in every circumstance where we can under the umbrella of international rules and the international community. But where the damage and danger is irrefutable, we reserve the right to act in our own interest or in the interest of humanity, if we have the capacity. …

That is different than the standard and the rationale of our neoconservative friends. They argue that the exercise of force is important because we are at the apex of our power and that we are more enlightened than the rest of the world. And when we have the ability to exercise force it allows us to leverage our power in direct proportion to the moral disapprobation of the rest of the world. …

[What you will see emerging in the Kerry administration, is] an adherence, and a value, and a promotion of international institutions like our grandfathers did at the end of WWII so we wouldn’t carry the whole load of the whole world all the time, and the willingness to exercise force if need be to enforce the rules of the road when they’re violated. …

TPM: Can I ask you a question? It seems that one of the shortcomings of the neoconservative worldview is their focus on states. …

BIDEN: … The fundamental flaw [of the neoconservatives] is that they genuinely believe — and put it in the negative sense — they do not believe it is possible for a sophisticated international criminal network that will rain terror upon a country, that has the potential to kill 3,000 or more people in a country, can exist without the sponsorship of a nation-state.

They really truly believe — and this was the Axis of Evil speech — if you were able to decapitate the regimes in Iraq, Iran, North Korea, you would in fact dry up the tentacles of terror.

I think that is fundamentally flawed reasoning. If every one of those regimes became a liberal democracy tomorrow, does anybody think we wouldn’t have code orange again in the United States? Rhetorical question. Does anybody think we don’t have to worry about the next major event like Madrid occurring in Paris or in Washington or in Sao Paulo? Gimme a break. But they really believe this is the way to do it. …

But the way Cheney’d respond to that would be to say, ´Well, are you telling me there’s not more terror when these guys are running [the show]´”

Yeah, there is. Do they aid and abet, do they have sort of a synergistic impact? But are they, if you eliminate them, the life blood that flows to these organizations? It is much more important for us to be able to go at their sources of funding. It’s more like organized crime. They love this thing about, you know, it’s not law enforcement. It’s not law enforcement in the sense that we have to have a warrant to go get them— that´s the implication. But it is basically gumshoe work.

It is intelligence; it is cutting off the source of their supply of money. It is infiltrating their organizations beyond bombing their training bases. That’s a good thing. They bomb their training camps — that´s a good thing. We did a good thing in getting rid of Saddam. That son-of-a-bitch was a butcher. But it had nothing to do with our central problem, terror.

And the reason why it’s so dangerous what they’re doing, their approach — it’s not intentional — but it takes their eye off the ball. It’s the wrong focus.

The question: do they have a synergistic impact? — is fundamental to the argument about the invasion of Iraq.

On this point, I part company with Senator Biden. The Middle East States that provided overt support “terrorists” — i.e., Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and other Palestinian groups — do not have a synergistic relationship with Al Qaeda. In fact, the states that supported Palestinian groups — Syria, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, etc. — are hostile towards Al Qaeda, which targets the governments of these states.

Al Qaeda received covert support from individuals within Saudi Arabia, and from the Pakisatani ISI.

Not only did Saddam not threaten the USA, but his suppression of Islamic Radicals prevented Iraq from becoming an Al Qaeda breeding ground.

The Bush Administration’s invasion and occupation of Iraq has made us less safe it three distinct ways:

1) It diverted resources from the hunt for Al Qaeda.

2) By removing Saddam, it turned Iraq into a terrorist breeding ground.

3) Bush’s arrogant unilateralism and hubris has destroyed America’s reputation in the world, and reversed the goodwill we enjoyed after 9/11.

The kids don’t want to be here anymore
They say “We’ve got nothing to live for”

The Long Weekend, “Working Poor”

Job growth disappoints
Job growth slowed dramatically in June, as employers added just 112,000 workers to payrolls last month, a number that came in well below forecasts by private economists.
…
Average hourly wages rose 2 cents, or 0.1 percent, to a seasonally-adjusted $15.65.
…
In Washington, President Bush hailed the report.
…
Bush said the job report shows that 1.5 million jobs have been created since August. “To me that shows the steady growth”

Chief Econnomist of Morgan Stanley, Steve Roach, asks What About Us?

Services-driven development models, such as the one now at work in India, cast globalization in a very different light. Most importantly, they broaden the competitive playing field, thereby bringing new pressures to bear both on job creation and on real wages in the developed world. This is where the debate gets prickly. Protectionists scream, “foul!” — arguing that trade barriers are the appropriate answer.

So, what about us? As education and skill levels are raised around the world, and as the world itself is brought closer together through IT-enabled connectivity, the wealthy developed world must rise to the occasion.

So far, I have not seen an answer to what kind of politics could be implemented, that can protect the workers in the developed countries from globalization. In Europe the negotiations between unions and enterprises are now for lower wages and longer working hours or less jobs. The wage rise in the US is less than inflation. Quite a change from 50 years of generally rising wages and shorter working hours.

What is the answer from the political left ? How will the next president answer to the problem ?

The author of the coming book “Imperial Hybris” writing as “Anonymous” because the CIA didn´t want his name outed, has an OpEd in todays Los Angeles Times, Seeing Islam Through a Lens of U.S. Hubris. Suggesting that there is something like American hybris will allready upset some readers. But there is more:

Al Qaeda actually is more dangerous today than it was before what Osama bin Laden calls the “blessed attacks” of 11 September.
To say the least, Americans are getting mixed and confusing messages from their leaders. Are we headed toward a victory parade, Cold War bomb shelters or simply straight to the graveyard?

I believe the answer lies in the way we see and interpret people and events outside North America, which is heavily clouded by arrogance and self-centeredness amounting to what I called “imperial hubris.” This is not a genetic flaw in Americans that has been present since the Pilgrims splashed ashore at Plymouth Rock, but rather a way of thinking that America’s elites acquired after the end of World War II. It is a process of interpreting the world so it makes sense to us, a process yielding a world in which few events seem alien because we Americanize their components.

Our political leaders contend that America’s astoundingly low approval ratings in polls taken in major Islamic countries do not reflect our unquestioning support of Israel and, as such, its “targeted killings” and other lethal high jinks. Nor, they say, are the ratings due to our relentless support for tyrannical and corrupt Islamic regimes that are systematically dissipating the Islamic world’s energy resources for family fun and profit, while imprisoning, torturing and executing domestic dissenters.

Thus, because of the pervasive imperial hubris that dominates the minds of our political, academic, social, media and military elites, America is able and content to believe that the Islamic world fails to understand the benign intent of U.S. foreign policy.

I’m saying that when Americans — the leaders and the led — process incoming information to make it intelligible in American terms, many not only fail to clearly understand what is going on abroad but, more ominous, fail to accurately gauge the severity of the danger that these foreign events, organizations, attitudes and personalities pose to U.S. national security and our society’s welfare and lifestyle.

I have long experience analyzing and attacking Bin Laden and Islamists. I believe they are a growing threat to the United States — there is no greater threat — and that we are being defeated not because the evidence of the threat is unavailable but because we refuse to accept it at face value and without Americanizing the data. This must change, or our way of life will be unrecognizably altered.

The last sentence is the essence and the problem. If the evidence would be accepted at face value and not Americanized, would not this in itself alter the American way of life unrecognizably?

All internal links on this site have now switched to www.MoonOfAlabama.org. Some more design elements from Billmons site have been added. Left to do for the rest of the day are the “About” page and a “Search” facility.

Many members of the Billmon community are discussing how to set up what kind of site over at the Whiskey Annex. I propose to use this site as the starting point of implementing something better suited. It´s running, it´s payed for and it “feels” familar to Billmons site.

There is no personal interest of mine to run this site, other than to discuss Billmons posts and current political/economic/philosophical issues. Authoring and moderation on this site will be shared.

Please leave your opinion on where to go from here and please suggest corrections and improvements for this site.

Thanks

Billmon writes:

“In case you’re wondering, Whiskey Bar isn’t going entirely out of business – at least, not yet. But the first two weeks of every quarter are…”

While Billlmon recharges his batteries…

Todays news, catastrophes, laughs or whatever you like to talk about.

Some 20 years of programming, system design and managing did teach me “Keep it simple stupid”. So already experiencing withdrawal syndromes, I decided to just make a typepad site to keep comments going . If it´s accepted – fine, if not – so what.

Next steps to take:
– get domain name
– have domain name redirected to dirtyglasses.typepad.com
– upgrade typepad account
– create better template/css
– organize for co-authers who are willing to post here to open a new thread, whenever Billmon updates his site.
– check comments to find the degree of moderation thats needed
– organize moderation if needed

As some have experienced, my grammar and spelling is not good. Please feel free to correct me.