Centerfield

Wildcat open thread

It is has been 3 days since anyone has posted, so a wildcat open thread is now mandatory. Random links:

• John Kerry Grills Belgium Ambassador Nominee Over Swift Boat Donation
• Dow rebounds after meltdown
• Mayor Daley poised to become longest serving Chicago mayor
• Egyptian blogger jailed for insulting Islam

Got a link or random thought to share?

Support the troops; not the war

The NYT has a long story on John Murtha and the growing movement to cut funding.

Mr. Murtha says he will meet with the Democratic leadership on Wednesday to talk about his plans; a spokesman for Ms. Pelosi said she had yet to sign off on any proposal. But the ideas Mr. Murtha has floated over the past month — attaching restrictions to the financing, and requiring the Pentagon to meet clear standards on readiness, training and equipment for troops about to be deployed to Iraq — have already drawn substantial criticism. Mr. Murtha has argued that his approach both protects American forces and makes Mr. Bush’s troop buildup plan impossible to sustain.

Elsewhere in the article Mr. Murtha receives praise from a spokesman from MoveOn.org. I'm having a hard time imaging Mr. Murtha's constituents in central PA being MoveOn kinda folks.

This does bring up the bigger question: How well does the public at large understand and/or support the military. I speak as someone who has not served. To me there has always been a certain sector that has skepticism about the military. Some have pejoritively called that sector the "intellectual elite". The book "Keeping Faith: A Father-Son Story about Love and the United States Marine Corps" did a good job exploring this phenomenom (i.e. the quizzical and pained looks when discussing why a well-educated, middle class kid would want to join the military)

Growing up during the Viet Nam era, I felt that tension a lot, especially when three of my brothers ended up in the military (1 by draft, 1 by military academy and 1 by "signing up"). The recent public debate has me once again asking "Do we really understand the military, the military mindset and how to support our military?"

A new era

I'm not sure that I will have the energy to keep up for 18 more months. First, the Clinton-Obama dustup. Now, this.

Former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack withdrew from the 2008 presidential campaign today, saying it was clear he would not be able to raise enough money to compete.

The first intra-party contest is still almost a year away, and the field is already narrowing. Now I realize that Vilsack was always a dark-horse (at best), but so were Carter and Dukakis at this point in their campaigns. Also, with a Democratic field with only one other governor competing (Richardson), I would have thought that the incentive to stick it out as long as possible would be strong. But maybe that was his point in quitting; it just wasn't possible because of the the money issue.

P.S. Initially, I thought that Sen. Dodd would be the first to go until I learned of his unexpected (to me) fundraising prowess.

Open Thread: Light Thoughts Listening to Sweeney Todd

I think the movie Jersey Girl had the right idea about a good musical for schools to do: the nice, light, fluffy Sweeney Todd (one of the darkest shows ever, for those who haven't seen it).

Teens are much more into dark than sweet. You'll hardly ever see a high school production much into the Sweet Charity or Gypsy or Grease they're assigned. Now, a production where people get chopped up, that's something else.

Hectoring the Hopefuls

If we ever get around to writing a centristcratic oath, we ought to include the responsibility to hector, harry, and otherwise challenge all prospective presidents with difficult questions. Thankfully for the lazy, other more diligent folks have gotten to work on this:

Paul Waldman's Short on questions of faith cuts right to the chase on the notion of holding all pols' feet to the fire. My nutshell excerpt:

Today, candidates for the White House feel compelled to do the opposite of what Kennedy did: convince voters not that their religion will be irrelevant, but that their faith will guide them each and every day. Yet paradoxically, we've moved further and further from any substantive discussion of what it means to be led in office by religious faith...

...Candidates who tell us how important their faith is to them are hoping that religious Americans will come away with warm feelings about them. But if they aren't willing to discuss just what that faith entails, they're saying they want people to vote for them because of their religion, but they don't want anyone to vote against them because of their religion.

They can't have it both ways: either religion is important to them or it isn't. And if it is, then we as voters have a right to know everything we can about what they believe.

Amen to that, no pun intended. And over at Reason, Dave Weigel picks a high hard inside fastball for various candidates. Read them all to see what your favorite one is. Here are a trio of my favorites:

4) Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback "You opposed President Clinton's 1999 action in Kosovo, and said at the time ‘I continue to implore the Clinton administration to present a clearly thought-out exit strategy from the hostilities in Kosovo.' Why didn't you apply this standard to the Bush administration over the last six years?"

3) Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney
"When Sen. Hillary Clinton gave a mildly hawkish speech about Iran but opened the possibility of engaging with their leaders, you blasted her. ‘Advocating engagement displays a troubling timidity toward a terrible threat. The right strategy is not engagement, but economic and diplomatic isolation.' Please enumerate which other countries you want to threaten instead of engage."

11) New York Sen. Hillary Clinton
"Defending your vote in favor of the Iraq resolution, you said: ‘As a senator from New York, I lived through 9/11 and am still dealing with the aftereffects.' What was Iraq's role in the 9/11 attacks?"

I especially like the Brownback one because I often wonder about the wayback machine question...how things would have unfolded if a democratic President had decided to invade Iraq under the same circumstances as Bush.

Feel free to play "I get to pick one candidate and ask one question" in the comments. If possible, try to find a good question to ask to someone who ISN'T your favorite whipping post.

Once again dead horse beating time

From Health Affairs the latest update on health care expenditures in the US.

Over the next decade U.S. healthcare spending is projected to double from today’s level, reaching $4.1 trillion and consuming 20 cents of every dollar spent by 2016

Its all about the costs!

War Support Declining

The Pew Center tracks the further decline of support for the Iraq war:

War Support Slips, Fewer Expect a Successful Outcome

Notice that the data breaking down by GOP/IND/DEM shows that the most substantial portion of the change in views has come from independents. Democrats have been stable with a 2 to 1 prediction of failure, and Republicans with a 5 to 4 prediction of success. Independents meanwhile once were 5 to 4 for success and now are 5 to 4 in foreseeing failure.

FWIW, I've heard reports that Bush has managed to uptick his support a hair just recently. Even so, this trend is not promising for anyone in the "failure is not an option" crowd.

Also FWIW, cheerily conceded that people can be idiots. Anyone recall why, in 1992, 31% of people would have called Japan the country representing the biggest danger to the US? That's a weird factoid from this report.

Oh and Max, please don't bogart the thread with a plethora of links. if you could keep it to 1 or 2, that'd be great. Thanks.

How Should Prizes Be Done?

It's pretty likely that the Ansari X-Prize will turn out to have done much greater good than bad, and I've become convinced that the Nobel's OK because it usually takes so long for them to make up their minds. Computer Science has a Turing Award that's similar. It clearly helps bring in funding to the awardees' schools, so it does have a positive impact.

But let's take a look at downsides in prizes. The first one I noticed, when I talked with a Computer Science Turing Prize awardee who came to give a talk at my grad school, was arrogance. He was beyond looking at evidence to determine his path, and looking at evidence is how he came to have the prize in the first place, and, indeed, how any science or engineering achievement happens. Very few major awardees technically produce anything further substantial. One unanswered question is how often they even become too arrogant for the subsequent usual management role. I just read of a transistor coinventor who lost his already-tenuous management ability entirely when he got his Nobel. Now, I would say the Pulitzer and (Math) Fields Prizes are decidedly bad because they're given to people currently doing stuff.

The other downside was pointed out by Macaulay, and that's working to please the prize committee instead of to help the public. He was talking about writing prizes like the Pulitzer, and I think he was right. I don't find looking at Pulitzer Prize recipients to be more than marginally helpful when looking at books. On the other hand, I do enjoy reading Hugo and Nebula award winners (science fiction). I wonder what the difference is.

Iraq open thread

Feel free to comment on anything about Iraq other than troop levels. Suggestions are: suggestions/prospects for regional diplomacy, political reconciliation and economic reconstruction, and our short-term/long-term mission there. Anything else is welcome except, as I said, troop levels.

What does it all mean?

So the Dems in the Senate failed to get the 60 votes to bring the war resolution to the floor (for the second time). Harry Reid promised more attempts.

As an Arizonan I found this interesting.

Both of Arizona's Republican senators missed the vote. Sen. Jon Kyl was in Iraq, and Sen. John McCain chose to campaign in Iowa.

And then this

The president has nudged support for the troop increase to 35 percent from 26 percent in early January. Sixty-three percent of those surveyed still oppose the increase. The increased support came from some of Bush's core supporters - Republicans, men, whites, suburbanites and people with higher incomes.

What does it all mean? Why won't things play out according to the script?

Why The Government and Big Companies Find It Harder To Get Stuff Done (SO LONG IT'S ALMOST LIKE WAR AND PEACE)

This is something I've been wondering about since I was a teenager at my first job, a US govt summer student position doing robotics at the Nat'l Bureau of Standards (now the Nat'l Int of Standards and Technology). There were lots of smart people, and yet the job was annoying because of the constant impact of politics.

Maybe I've finally figured out why, now that I'm over twice as old. More recent inspirations for this were my earlier Civ vs. chess post and Doris Kearns Goodwin's recent great book, Team of Rivals, a book about Lincoln and his cabinet.

What Game Are You Playing?

Many government employees, and people who choose to live in big hierarchies play a different kind of game than many of the rest of us in their thinking. Like chess, there are a set number of high positions to play for, with just a very small number of top dogs. There are many very talented players playing for these positions, so talent alone can't get you in; you must make everybody who might otherwise win look bad to your superiors or at least keep them from looking good. Thus, employees playing for high position are likelier to be be disinterested in transparent evaluation and more interested in spinning and investigating to make each other look bad. Congress is an excellent example - it passes bureaucrat-bashing bills as often as crime bills, and their usual result is to make things harder for some segment of the government.

What drew me to this realization is Salmon's actions in the Lincoln Administration. Salmon P. Chase was a real cold fish, but also Lincoln's excellent Secretary of the Treasury. Among other things, he introduced paper currency and did most of the work of arranging to pay for the unbelievably expensive Civil War. Salmon was also devoutly anti-slavery. And yet, he opposed Lincoln's great Emancipation Proclamation. Why? Because he privately wanted slavery ended by one President Salmon P. Chase (and did he fear he wouldn't've done it as cleverly as Lincoln?).

Ironically, one result of this behavior is that the government looks like it's full of stupid people because it underperforms other parts of our society. But it's really full up to the gills with smart people.

Outside the government and other set hierarchies, things are different. For most of us, If we want to do something and have the appropriate talent and training, mostly, we can either persuade somebody to employ us to do somethin pretty similar or do it on our own hook at least part time. We are in effect creating new positions to do new things all the time.

Unless you happen to enjoy intrigue, a job in a hierarchical world is likely to be less fun and more bureaucratic. Like playing chess, somebody wanting to win the bureaucracy game must make best use of powerful allies and put opposing pieces out of the game to thrive. Detective work thrives in Washington, since that can be a way of putting people out of the gamek.

Much of the rest of democratic society works in a more positive way. The game's more like Civ, where you can construct new units, new places to build things, and new ways of doing things. In the real world, you can make new advances as well and create new groups. This makes most jobs better because it creates more and more better and better jobs as technology and the amount and effect of money in circulation to invest advance.

How Many People Are Above You?

There's another contributing factor: depth of hierarchy. The bigger a hierarchy is, the worse it usually performs. Let's suppose you're a grunt employee for a second, actually doing stuff. If anybody in the hierarchy above you is a bad manager, ANYBODY, your work is likely to be unpleasant and/or come to naught. Since a fair number of managers aren't up to their jobs, the more managers above you in the grunt job, chances get pretty good that ONE isn't up to his job.

The way the world's set up make statistics work hard against that poor grunt, because there's a multiplication for each level. I had six levels above me going up to President Reagan; even a 10% chance of any given mgr not being up to his job would give me a bit over a 50/50 shot of having a good mgt chain above me.

Some Fine Examples:

In both the War of 1812 and Civil War, the armies stationed near DC performed noticeably worse than elsewhere (DC arguably burned due to politics in the former war!). In the Civil War, Lincoln ended up having to bring in a general with a command far from DC to command the armies well. One reason Grant succeeded was that he tried to avoid politics as much as possible, despite DC's proximity, and what must've been plenty of visitors at least trying to talk to him about Presidential possibilities.

Some recent examples of questionable governmental performance:

Federal Panel [not NIST] Rejects Paper Trail For E-Voting

Why cell phone outage reports are secret

White House Clamps Down On USGS Publishing

Global Warming Dissenters Suppressed?

Climate Researchers Feeling Heat From White House

The link's now stale, but Texan politicians took advantage of real Chinese espionage and questionable claims made by paranoid LANL directors to advance the case that UTexas and/or big donor corporatons should assume at least partial responsibility for LANL. The result was life being made hard for researchers at LANL, and a continuation of a long slipping-away of many of the best to more reasonable environments.

Of course, all those recent examples happened in the Bush II Administration, but my point is that this underperformance happens in every Administration. I could come up with similar links for any Administration. It's endemic to government.

Hedging and Conclusions

Now, there are government positions that are alot better - govt universities consistently score among our best research universities. The key is that the positions there are pretty fluid, and the hierarchy is designed to be weak. You still get the obnoxiousness of having your bosses (the Legislature) constantly working for votes by spinning you as a liberal fool who will bill the honest taxpayer for $trillions in travel funds and abortions.

One conclusion would be that if you have to work for the govt, be a political appointee. They have fewer people above them and good access to people in high places. And be ready to resign.

The government pretty much HAS to be this way. We don't know how to avoid it. Outsourcing to contractors has helped somewhat, but it's only a modest improvement. And that's brought its own new games to get contracts.

The only real workaround for this is probably to replace as much of high-level government goals as possible with multiply-sourced private replacements. But that's much more easily said than done. It'll never be realistic for the Armed Forces or State Department, for example.

It oughtta be possible to free govt research labs at least somewhat. Maybe by making them more like universities, with less hierarchy and rules? And it's not just directly govt-run labs, but also the university-run, govt-funded labs like Los Alamos, JHU APL, etc.. But, again, that's a hard thing to nail down?

Ideas?

Posted by Jon Kay at 12:08 AM | Comments (2)

Efficacy of Chinese Punishment

Crime and Punishment, China style

A Chinese man has been sentenced to death for conning people out of 3 billion yuan ($387 million) in a giant scam to breed ants, local media said on Thursday...

...More than 10,000 people, lured by the promise of returns of up to 60 percent, signed 100,000 contracts with Wang's bogus company before the case came under investigation in June 2005...

...fifteen managers of the company were jailed for between five and 10 years and fined between 100,000 and 500,000 yuan, Xinhua news agency said. In his defense, Wang said he did not know the first thing about raising ants and was "quite unclear" about the costs, the Beijing News said.

I wonder what sort of dent America could put in the ranks of con artists (independent _and_ corporate) with a few death sentences. On my bad days, hearing about say Enron, I itch to find out.

He's a Liberal, I Don't Care

There has been a lot of talk lately about who Barack Obama is. Let me make this easy, he is a liberal. Nothing more then a big government, pro-choice, pro-gay, anti-gun, soft on crime, pro-union, anti-business, left wing activist, whose heart bleeds so much that he became a community organizer instead of a millionaire. I could give a rat's ass.

Some have loved to point out that Obama is a politician. Thanks for that. They love to say he is only moving to the middle to run for President. I am blown away. In my opinion those folks miss the boat when they point out to us the painfully obvious and pass it off as intellect. I am still not bothered by Obama.

Those who either are supporting another Democrat, or a Republican, or are just cynical in nature, but certainly an asset to the debate, have pointed out that he did in fact inhale, that he smokes, that his travel costs are 45% more than any other Senator in his class, that he has a lot of big money donors, that his middle name is Hussein, that he has less experienced than the other serious candidates for President... Don't care, don't care, don't care, don't care, don't care.

It isn't about the issues, it isn't about his political strategy, and it isn't about the background for many... Rather, it is about the approach, the big picture, the candidate that represents the kind of country we want are kids to grow up in. We haven't flocked to him because "he talks real purdy," we flock to him because we sense that he is telling the truth, we trust him, and he gets it. When he makes a mistake, he says it is a mistake. When he is asked about his past, he doesn't suger coat it with talking points such as "when I was young and dumb, I was young and dumb."

I am writing this because I want us to think about something here at Centerfield just once. Rather than poor over details that in the grand scheme of things don't amount to jack, I would like us to think 5 years down the road and not 5 minutes. What kind of personalilty best fits the Presidency at this point in our history? What kind of image do we want to present to the rest of the world? How do we want the President to communicate to the public, to foreign leaders, and to members of Congress both in and outside of his or her own party? In all of these areas most of us have not been please with the results over the past six years. Some of us have felt lied to, justfiably, and others feel like that the President of the United States does not represent the best of his own country. I'll be honest, I am having a hard time seeing why the answer to all of those questions is not Barack Obama, but I am truly interested in what you have to say.

Reynolds Supports Terror

I hope the usually thoughtful Reynolds made this remark sometime when he was tired, because it calls for us to become a terror state ourselves by deliberately targeting civilians. Mind you, I'm pretty supportive of action against Iran, but terrorism is wrong no matter who does it. And making recourse to it in a War on Terror is, well, er....

This has been obvious for a long time anyway, and I don't understand why the Bush Administration has been so slow to respond. Nor do I think that high-profile diplomacy, or an invasion, is an appropriate response. We should be responding quietly, killing radical mullahs and iranian atomic scientists, supporting the simmering insurgencies within Iran, putting the mullahs' expat business interests out of business, etc. Basically, stepping on the Iranians' toes hard enough to make them reconsider their not-so-covert war against us in Iraq. And we should have been doing this since the summer 2003. But as far as I can tell, we've done nothing along these lines.

In fact, we are taking serious action: the diplomacy that he scorns (why? nuclear development needs $$$$x, and that's the only hope for getting good sanctions against Iran), and in fact, despite his short memory, there WAS a bill on supporting Iranian oppo groups. Iran would love it if we stepped on Iranian emigrant interests. If by that he means opposing Iran's proxy wars agains us, well, we're doing that already.

Both radical mullahs and atomic scientists are civilians. If you want to legitimize terrorism against strategically important civilians, then you legitimize half the deaths on 9/11: The Pentagon'd be legit because it was all military and civilian military employees. Many who died on 9/11 were big in our strategic financial industry - after all, our money is really what gives us our superiority. You'd be legitimizing future strikes against our military industries outside wartime. Oh, boy.

And, 90% of our advantage in this war comes from moral advantage. That's a big part of why the Iraqi on the street supports us. Striking civilians would abandon that and plenty of support elsewhere.

War is about hurrying and waiting. That's not just for the grunts, either, but the generals, too. There's no way around it, unless you don't mind losing. If you want to place some blame, well, if a certain Administration hadn't screwed up the war politics and the occupation, we'd have more troops and political energy around now.

Reynolds better watch out - they might put him on the no-fly list now for supporting terror ;-)?

Sunni or Shi'ite?

Remember, you can't tell the players without a scorecard, and you won't understand the game unless you know which players are on which team. So take the quiz:

sunni or shi'ite?

Bookmark it. Make friends takes it. Someone make us a color-coded map, too!

Shut Up?

Here's an idea. Just for today, for one thread. Let's set aside our penchant for blathering. "What?!?!" You say. "How unblogospheric...."

Well, popular mechanics has a lengthy essay with numbers crunch on alternative fuels. It's a good thing.

All you have to do to learn some useful stuff is shut up and read it. Comments are open, so we can always gab later about it, right? Here's to silent enjoyment! Don't come back until you can talk to me about BioWillie!

Does American Light Rail EVER Make Sense?

At first, when I wrote this post, I was going suggest ALL light rail and trolleys are a scam. But I realized that I have seen one system that operated better than busses could: we took an LR system in Istanbul that sends several-car trains about every 10-15 minutes. That's the only LR system I've seen that clearly outperformed what busses could do.

The LR systems I've seen in Boston and the Bay Area, and the single-track plan here in Austin (though that, thankfully, will be heavy rail and not need a massive digging budget) all suffer from plans to run short trains at bus-like intervals. They could've moved as many people more cheaply with busses running more often, and some judicious sending of multiple busses to service particular schedule points in rush hour (Austin does this). This is wasted money, not practical transit. Same thing with San Francisco's trolleys.

Has anybody seen an American exception (has Boston gotten better in the two decades since I learned not to take the Green Line anywhere)?

What's the deal with this love affair we have about trains? We have some great subway systems, but we seem to get silly about aboveground trains.

Idiocracy

My wife and I both found Mike Judge's sociopolitical satire Idiocracy pretty amusing. IMDB is rating it only 6.3. What that means is your mileage, but my guess is some of the jokes might have gone over the heads of the Beavis and Butthead crowd.

The premise? Luke Wilson and Maya Rudoph are average folks frozen in an Army experiment, and they're accidently kept frozen for 500 years while the dummies outbreed the "smart" people. When they wake up, they're comparative geniuses. Absurdity ensues. It's not a masterpiece, but there's a lot to chuckle at. It could probably have been even better.

What are your most and least favorite movies about politics, including but not confined to satires?

Valentine's Day Open Thread

Valentine's Day Open Thread, open for everything except bar-raising testimony about whatever wonderful thing you did for YOUR significant other. Posts making the rest of us schmoes look bad may be edited for content. :-)

Let me get a few things off my mind to start the blathering. Chime in or ignore:

Southern NE is getting its first measurable snow of the season, and people lost their minds in anticipation. Sort of embarassing given that it's been something of a clinker so far. Yeah, there's some ice, and it's slippery. But that's called winter. Peter Pan and Bonanza bus lines cancelled all service. Insert your disparging slogan suggestion here, something like "we'll get you where you're going, if we feel like it, unless it's not a nice day."

If SD wanted to fire their coach, why did they wait? All the turkey and roast beef has been picked from the deli platter. If there was any.

I'm jealous Tully was chatting up Carla about starting vegetables. I can't wait for spring. I've already bought seeds, and Daisuke has cometh.

Here's an idle question. Who would agree with the notion that most or even all of the currently viable 2008 candidates for the Presidency are more palatable than GW Bush and John Kerry? FWIW, I'd hope that even rabid Republicans might say "OK, I really don't like Obama in many respects, but he's less odious than John Kerry." And I'd hope even rabid democrats would say "Well, I really don't like Mitt Romney, but he can't be as bad as Bush." I mean, these are pretty small concessions. If you can't let that pass your lips, should we just ink you in (in perpetuity) for the view that "__oppostion candidate X__" is the antichrist." or would you prefer we wait for Godot?

What are your thoughts on the "jeez its way too early" theme regarding 2008? How much of the early run up do you think is due to the runaway trend of "ever earlier?" Could any of it have to do with higher than usual public dissatisfaction and unease? My gut says the stakes are higher than usual, that 2008 could be a real tipping point. That might be overly dramatic, but FWIW, I didn't think that in 2004.

***BREAKING BIG***

Al Sadr Fled Iraq, Fearing U.S. Bombs

The story tonight in Iraq is not the arrival of more U.S. troops, but the departure of one of the country's most powerful men, Moqtada al Sadr and members of his army.

According to senior military officials al Sadr left Baghdad two to three weeks ago, and fled to Tehran, Iran, where he has family.

Al Sadr commands the Mahdi Army, one of the most formidable insurgent militias in Iraq, and his move coincides with the announced U.S. troop surge in Baghdad.

[Cross-posted everywhere.]

Obama - quick comment

I'll participate in Brian's thread below, but one point does merit a quick post-level reply. Brian writes "Ultimately, if you are a centrist, and you decide to vote for him, it will be because you are choosing to take something of a leap of faith. I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with that."

I don't think there's anything wrong with taking a "leap of faith". I do think, however, that if you're going to play poker with transparent cards, it's stupid to try and bluff your opponent, and even stupider to fall for such a bluff. As I said yesterday, "It's one thing to trust [a candidate] in the absence of evidence, but when confronted with a mountain of evidence demonstrating that he isn't a centrist, and only his own (not entirely disinterested) rhetoric as proof of these supposed centrist credentials, it boggles my mind that any rational person could conclude that [t]he [candidate] is 'sincere.'"

A Balanced Look at Obama

Over at Stubborn Facts, they're*** going bananacakes over the evil liberalism of Barack Obama because he's, they claim, a liberal trying to clothe himself in centrism. Or as Simon has variously claimed, a liar and possessed of the least credibility of all current candidates.

Beneath the frothing hyperbole is a fair point. Obama's liberal. I'm not persuaded that this qualifies as "stop the presses" news, nor am I convinced that Obama's rhetoric qualifies him as an insincere liar and general snake oil salesman.

If you're a centrist, you may well find Obama's approach appealing. If you're a centrist with a bullsh!t detector, you temper your enthusiasm by being careful to grant him only a fair hearing, not a prematurely gushing grant of your undying allegiance. That's how we roll, right?

Anyway, I ran across what I found to be a more balanced questioning of who this guy is and what promise he may or may not hold. From the Daily Herald

Obama, who objects to ideological labels, wins high marks from progressives on environment, abortion and labor issues, as well as on civil liberties and education, all of which are vital to winning the Democratic Party's presidential nominating process.

...
"When he talks about a new kind of politics, what does he mean by that?" asked Fischer, who's backing former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack for the party's nomination. "He's going to have to put some meat on those bones."
...

One example [of reaching across the aisle] is Obama's partnership with Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., one of the Senate's most conservative members. The two introduced legislation last year to make it easier to find the identities of recipients of federal funding and financial assistance.''

...
State Sen. Dave Luechtefeld, a Republican from Okawville, Ill., also had high marks for Obama's gifts as a communicator but said he shouldn't be confused as a centrist. "He is what he is -- a liberal Democrat," Luechtefeld said. "I'm not saying that's all bad. It's just what he is."

You gotta read the whole thing. Plenty of starter meat on actual votes, predictable puffy quotes from his campaign, a variety of questions and perspectives. The cited votes show a liberal. At a glance, the vote that troubles me most is the one against allowing people who used guns in their home to claim self-defense. That's a red flag worth looking into...although it was a law geared towards what the regs would be in towns where handguns were banned.

Obama's record is thin, speaking comparatively. He's been promising a new kind of politics that transcends what he bemoans as the smallness of our politics. Is he truly committed to and capable of finding and working on common ground, or is that just BS cover for a committed liberal ideologue? Here's the thing. Ultimately, if you are a centrist, and you decide to vote for him, it will be because you are choosing to take something of a leap of faith. I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with that. Just know that's what you'll be doing.

UPDATE: At Simon's behest, I'm adding a link. You decide, would a grown up call him Obambi? Or say "battered centrist syndrome"? Someone's coming a little bit unhinged:
• frothing • banana • cakes

***Update 2: Tully's right. "They" isn't quite right. It's 99.9% Simon banging the "Obama's a liberal" drum. Pat mighta chimed in a hair here or there, but Simon's carrying the weight.

Today's little H hero

This is inspirational:

MAKING TELEMARKETERS PAY - IN CASH

Lammé started getting pelted with calls from mortgage brokers last year, just as his adjustable rate mortgage was about to reset. Like many consumers, he quickly reached the boiling point over the frequent interruptions. But unlike many consumers, the computer programmer took the time to educate himself – perhaps owing to the spirit of his grandmother, a lawyer for several decades – and quickly discovered the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

“It specifically deals with unwanted calls,” he said. “For each violation, there is a $500 penalty.” Who gets that money? The call recipient. Lammé read on and found he didn’t have to hire a high-priced attorney to pursue the penalty fees – he could file the case himself.

So far, Lammé has won $6,000 in judgments against telemarketers in three cases. He's not a lawyer, but by filing in small claims court, he's spent no more than $100 in court fees and scarcely more than an hour of his time on any case. Now he wants you to do it, too.

A cash settlement is nice. In my more angry and cynical moments, I contemplate the expedience of more draconian punishments, and I'm sure I'm not alone.

What are Orientalism and Anti-Orientalism, Anyway?

Reviews of Robert Irwin's anti-anti-Imperialist book have triggered a mild resurgence in talk about anti-Imperialism. So what was this anti-Orientalism stuff, anyway, and why is it cause so many arguments?

For all the talk about it and the theory's controversial inventor, Edward Said, explanations are rare.

I'm married to a professor in a related field who's explained it to me, and has a copy of the original book handy, I thought maybe I'd explain it, its limits, and why I believe in anti-Orientalism has power as an explanatory theory.

The theory is that European imperialism and racism had an effect on European writers and thinkers, in effect resulting in many writings about an imagined Orient more about Western interests and thought than about the actual subject of this thought. In all this, it was pretty hard to find the harsh realities of the imperial subjects on the ground. I accepted this pretty immediately because I'd seen that effect myself in books I read as a boy, notably in Frank Herbert and H.P. Lovecraft, and even a Rimsky-Korsakov tone poem I'm still fond of, Scheherezade. I believe I've failed to get into some past classics, like Lawrence Durrell's books, because they're much harder without the shared imperialist background.

Said's book is titled Orientalism because that was the name of European studies of The Orient during Imperialism's heyday. His theory is generally referred to as anti-Orientalism

Some of the effects I've read about or observed in fiction:

Superiority: Imperialist doctrine was that Europeans dominated the earth because of racial superiority. All explanations about subjugated peoples had to be seen through that (crooked) lens.

Pride in conquest: Europeans liked to think about the regions they had conquered at those regions' relative civilizational heights, no doubt because that made them feel more powerful.

Corruption: Probably because there was little constructive the conquered felt they could do about it, Europeans did many things mores would'n't permit at home, ranging from freer sex (OK) to abusive sex and effective robbery (BAD). That led to Europeans feeling freer out in their empires.

Exoticism: The literature, cultures, and histories of the conquered peoples were profoundly fascinating to Europeans because of their novelty (1001 Nights translation, Scheherezade). This is largely benign, except that Orientalist writers and their readers were more interested in using new patterns to make European lives more interesting than in the miserable realities of the empires.

Fear: Owning an empire is to live in fear it will revolt (Lovecraft).

There's alot of intellectual paranoia about anti-Orientalism, because controversy over the theory's originator, Edward Said, goes far beyond the scholarly literary community that debates Orientalism regularly. Said seems to me to have later lost the deep insight that led to his discovery, becoming arrogant and paranoid, even serving on the PLO's board. There was a science fiction Usenet newsgroup that used to refer to a mind-eater that would get so many of the best authors. Well, I think Said's mind was eaten. I think he grew arrogant in success.

In the book, Said seemed indecisive as to whether the US is currently an imperialist power. He lost that indecisiveness later, and I think he was wrong to characterize globalization as imperialism. In fact, I see less and less popular Orientalist literature with any audience, which seems to to me to support both his claims about anti-Orientalism and mine about globalization not being Imperialism.

Let me cite two examples I grew up with: H.P. Lovecraft and Frank Herbert's Dune Trilogy, both widely read and highly popular in their eras. Lovecraft wrote horror and Frank Herbert science fiction. These books immediately came my mind when The Profesora explained Orientalism to me, because several Orientalist elements had always been hard for me to swallow.

Lovecraft wrote during the early twentieth century, during the height of imperialism. Herbert wrote rather later, in the 70s, in the US, well after Imperialism was out. but it's still there, in runway lights 100 feet long, which makes for interesting questions about the exact conditions under which Orientalism proliferates.

And not every imperialist author was guilty of Orientalism in their writings about the Middle East. Churchill was an imperialist and racist through and through, approving the killings by air bomb of numerous Iraqis who dared to oppose Britain's wishes in Iraq. But I haven't seen any Orientalism in his writings, though he did go somewhat into Middle Eastern British Imperial actions.

As I wrote earlier, Lovecraft was an early 20C famous horror writer. He was famously reclusive, cat-loving, racist, and anti-semitic. Many of his horrors are oriented around the magic of ancient countries conquered by Europeans returning to decidedly ill effect upon the conquerors (see Fear, above). They feature decidedly fantastic Oriental courts secretly running things or pulling off evil in secret or running Dreamland. There are two sides of this in Lovecraft's work - the fun side of an unknown playland, seen in his Dreamland bits, which still compel today - and the scary side, where those Oriental courts suddenly are seen to secretly rule the world, except that that's not so scary today, since Europe doesn't hold down the world under its thumb in the same way atall anymore.

Herbert was an interesting example, since his Dune Trilogy postdates imperialism per se, at least in the US, where it was popular - it came out in the late 70s. But it's set in a far future utterly and hopelessly dominated by a deeply fantastic Middle-Eastern court. The soldiery that dominates the empire passes from one set to another in the book - both sets empire-dominating, ?why?, because both've been living in deserts and had tough lives. Oh, and, of course, the resource produced just on one, hmm, desert planet, with featuring a rather stagey Middle Eastern - style society. Interesting, huh? Though I found the characters and certain of the background interesting, I never could suspend my disbelief on most of the world setting.

It's an interesting question how Orientalism came to show up in Herbert. Were the oil worries big enough back then for it to have a similar dynamic in audiences of the time as was seen in imperial Europe? Or it could've reflected racism. In fact, it amounted to quite a bit of stereotyping, the stereotypical Arab Street the media always talked about come to rule the universe to the farthest degree imaginable.

To the theory's strength (but, ironically, contrary to his belief that the US was imperialist when he wrote the book), I'm finding it harder and harder to find Orientalism in contemporary American fiction. Indeed, as time goes on, fiction I've read set in the Middle East, for example, seems to me to get, on balance, more and more gritty and seemingly realistic. Especially the stuff that actually sells. Though it'd be interesting to know if sales trends of Dune changed after 9/11.

What's brought Orientalism back to the public view is the release of an anti-anti-Orientalist book, Orientalism and Its Discontents, by Robert Irwin. Here's a Washington Post review. I'm never going to read that book, but the Post review contains a quote from that book with a wrong basic assumption:

Said libelled generations of scholars who were for the most part good and honourable men and he was not prepared to acknowledge that some of them at least might have written in good faith.

I'm cautious about claiming that Said didn't do anything, but the original book and most papers about Orientalism make no claims about bad faith or any other deliberate evil. No, it's about something quite different, the result of a change in ethics. It's simply that we see things differently, in a more egalitarian fashion now, just as most don't accuse Jefferson of acting in bad faith for perpetuating slavery on his plantation. This is a straw man.

To be sure, many scholars caught on the wrong side of that change of ethical climate have made wild accusations and been intellectually dishonest. And, as I suggested above, Said eventually came to join the dishonesty, and no doubt he had some company on the anti-imperialist side as well. So, between that and Said's later extremism, the theory is probably more controversial than it deserves.

Posted by Jon Kay at 01:44 AM | Comments (0)

Obama - another perspective

I'm sorry, but I can't let stand without some kind of rejoinder Mathew's suggestion below that "[n]o matter if you agree with [Obama] all of the time, and I don't, you believe this man." For reasons explained here and here, there is no candidate, none, who is in or likely to be in the Presidential race who strikes me as having less credibility as a candidate than Barack "I'm a non-partisan, honest" Obama.

As to the idea that Obama "got it exactly right" about the war in 2002, Obama was not right about the war, for reasons explained here.

A Tall Gangly Lawyer from Illinois

That stuff yesterday about Obama taking it seriously... Forget it. You couldn't have watched the announcement this morning and not taken the man seriously. He leaves you with the belief that he is going to be the next President of the United States... It eerily seemed like the right place and the right time regardless of his experience. I felt like I was watching history with my one and a half year old on the couch beside me, and yes, I believe the comparisons to Abraham Lincoln are valid.

No matter if you agree with him all of the time, and I don't, you believe this man. You respect that although his ideals are those of your average liberal Democrat, that his way to make these ideals a reality is actually quite centrist or middle of the road. Obama is right, our politics is small. Although he is technically on the cusp of being a baby boomer, he is clearly running for the next generation. I would bet if you asked him one on one he would tell you that the baby boomers have had two shots over the last fourteen years, and they have left a country maybe as divided as it was during the latter years of the Vietnam War. In short, he can unite where George W. Bush and Bill Clinton divided.

I think if we agree on anything here at Centerfield it is that the debate over where we are going as a country has turned absolutely ridiculous. It may just take a mixed race, former community organizer, who speaks in full paragraphs to present an America to the rest of the world that is mostly united, much like it was in the days after September the 11th. Although I would never condone voting for someone based on their skin color, I think the fact that Obama has a shot is a good thing and presents a side of this country that has been absent for the rest of the world for the last six years. Make fun of his middle name if you choose, but no Northern European political leader can say they have a connection to those in the Middle East, that swear to watch over the destruction of the western world, like Barack Hussein Obama. Who he is, and his background, may be huge political advantages.

Much of the headlines will talk about his anti-war statements in his speech this morning. There is no doubt his goal is to end military action and replace it with diplomacy and politics. Although I don't agree that a United States Senator should be setting deadlines, that is the President's job, the fact is if I could go back I would listen to more of what Barack Obama had to say in 2003 and 2004, and not George W. Bush. Smart, thoughtful people told us this war was a mistake, that it would lead us to years of conflict, that it would take our focus from Afghanistan and the war on terror and bigger problems in Iran and North Korea, and that their was no immediate threat from Saddam Hussein. One of those people was a State Senator from Illinois running in the Democratic primary for the United States Senate, and he got it exactly right. That judgement should be recognized.

Yesterday I doubted Obama's decision to skip the first debate with his Democratic opponents, but details will come. Obama will give his ten point plan speeches just like any other candidate, and debates will occur, but I have to agree with what Howard Fineman said to Chris Matthews this morning... We aren't in a place right now where policy white papers from political candidates can make much of a difference, because bitter politics ends any real discussion before it begins and details get lost in the mud. What we need is to focus on the big picture. What we need is a leader who can focus on interests and not positions and change the direction of political debate to a point where we are in his own words "rolling up our sleeves" to fix problems, rather than fighting over ideological talking points. Out of all of the candidates, many of whom I think would actually make good President's, the one with the least political experience might be our best shot. If for any other reason he has the intellect to see that the way we go about making policy decisions is flawed, and uncorrupted by the system from the outside, he may have the ability to change it.

What's up with Barry Obama?

According to MSNBC Obama wants to opt out of federal matching funds for the primary only to possibly opt in for the general. Seems logical to me. As a supporter of public campaign financing he would rather take the Federal money, but as a politician he isn't going to beat Hillary unless he can keep up in the money race. On the one hand this sends a message to donors that he is serious, on the other hand, well, flip-flopper. Patrick Ruffini thinks this is really a setup for Obama to run in 2012, not 2008.

I originally thought that idea was silly, but now we learn that Obama is skipping the first debate in Nevada. Hmmm.... important primary state, a debate held by an important Democratic constituency, everyone else will be there... Why would Obama do this? Unless Tully and Patrick are right... He isn't seriously going to run.

If that is true, that was the most successful book tour since Colin Powell's My American Journey.

Another Prediction Right On Target: Al'Maliki

Well, Brian, take a bow. I think it was you who was prophesying that the pressure the Bush Administration applied would result in al'Maliki trying to throw out a stern anchor.

Sure enough, here it is. Or maybe he just wants to slow his coalition's collapse. Anyway, here's a report giving excuses why that nasty law stuff should'n't be enforced on the poor militias, in the process in effect blaming those evil Sunnis for Shi'a gang bad behavior.

There's an interesting relationship between reports and politicians, isn't there? This is the second report pointer on Centerfield just today that probably nobody can learn anything from, really. But they give their creators political cover.

Tale of Two Headline Slants

Fox page 1:
Pentagon Fights Pre-war Intel Smear links to Pentagon Defends Pre-Iraq War Intelligence

A "very damning" report by the Defense Department's inspector general depicts a Pentagon that purposely manipulated intelligence in an effort to link Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda in the runup to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, says the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

...

At the center of the prewar intelligence controversy was the work of a small number of Pentagon officials from Feith's office and the office of Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz who reviewed CIA intelligence analyses and put together their own report. When they briefed Rumsfeld on their report in August 2002 — a period when Vice President Dick Cheney and other administration officials were ratcheting up their warnings about the gravity of the Iraq threat — Rumsfeld directed them to also brief CIA Director George Tenet.

MSNBC Page 1
WP: Pentagon Provided "Dubious" Intel leads to Probe: Prewar intel inappropriate but not illegal

WASHINGTON - Intelligence provided by former undersecretary of defense Douglas J. Feith to buttress the White House case for invading Iraq included "reporting of dubious quality or reliability" that supported the political views of senior administration officials rather than the conclusions of the intelligence community, according to a report by the Pentagon's inspector general.

...

the inspector general concluded that Feith's assessment in 2002 that Iraq and al-Qaeda had a "mature symbiotic relationship" was not fully supported by available intelligence but was nonetheless used by policymakers.

...At the time of Feith's reporting, the CIA had concluded only that there was an "evolving" association, "based on sources of varying reliability."

...Feith emphasized the inspector general's conclusion that his actions, described in the report as "inappropriate," were not unlawful. "This was not 'alternative intelligence assessment,' " he said. "It was from the start a criticism of the consensus of the intelligence community, and in presenting it I was not endorsing its substance."

Very different headlines reporting substantially similar stories. Fox links to an exec summary of the report. Now it's worth wondering about the purity of Levin's motives, so be prepared for the the forthcoming defensive salvos from war supporters. All that went on in the run-up to the Iraq invasion may not be revealed soon or ever. That leaves a lot of us with our own mileage. Mine is that my gut told me from day 1 that the ratio of unbridled enthusiasm to solid intelligence was far greater than it ought to have been.

Friday Blathertime

Got a burr under yer saddle?

Let's Play Leap Frog

Florida Jockeying for Better Primary Slot

If the bill (HB 537) becomes law, Florida's primary - currently in March, when it's virtually irrelevant - would take place either seven days after New Hampshire's, or on Feb. 5, whichever comes first. New Hampshire has not set its date.

An identical bill has been filed in the Senate.

With states around the country, including California, jockeying for position to challenge the traditional dominance of the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary, Florida legislators on both sides of the aisle don't want to be left behind. They believe a state as large and diverse as Florida should play a fundamental role in the nomination process.

NH First

A bill before the state Legislature is designed to cement the secretary of state's authority to schedule New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation presidential primary before the Nevada caucuses in 2008 - if he chooses.

State law requires Secretary of State Bill Gardner to schedule the primary on a Tuesday a week - or more - before any "similar election."

The "or more" part allows Gardner to jump as far ahead as he wishes, but in the past he has not challenged Iowa's caucuses, which have long been before the New Hampshire primary.

How about we just have every state hold its primary for the next Presidential election the day after the new President is inaugurated?

Disappointed, Not Surprised

According to the New Republic, the hoopla about John McCain being a different kind of politician seems to be just that--hoopla. When it gets down to crunch time, he, like pretty much every politician, will do whatever it takes to win, even if it involves hiring slime bags and catering to the right-wingers. It appears that Republican candidate think they need their own SOB to win--certainly McCain suffered from Bush's SOB in 2000 and I guess, to paraphrase George Wallace, McCain is not going to be out SOB-ed again.

I don't think this means that McCain is a bad person or lacks character. But it does mean that he wants to win and that he is not averse to pandering to the same groups that he once criticized when it was in his interest to portray himself as a maverick. Unfortunately, in politics, if you aren't willing to do anything to win, you won't. And there are a plethora of people out there (in both parties) that will help you do that. This probably isn't any different than it ever was, but it's certainly more in the open than it used to be.

Edward's Universal Health Plan

John Edward's has a plan to cover all of us. According to his website:

Under the Edwards Plan:

-Families without insurance will get coverage at an affordable price.
-Families with insurance will pay less and get more security and choices.
-Businesses and other employers will find it cheaper and easier to insure their workers.

The Edwards Plan achieves universal coverage by:

-Requiring businesses and other employers to either cover their employees or help finance their health insurance.
-Making insurance affordable by creating new tax credits, expanding Medicaid and SCHIP, reforming insurance laws, and taking innovative steps to contain health care costs.
-Creating regional "Health Markets" to let every American share the bargaining power to purchase an affordable, high-quality health plan, increase choices among insurance plans, and cut costs for businesses offering insurance.
-Once these steps have been taken, requiring all American residents to get insurance.

Some thoughts:

If I were Hillary Clinton I would be gagging, and then I would say: "Hey John, that sounds like a good idea. I am glad I had it over ten years ago." This looks, smells, and feels a lot like Hillary-care. An idea that was brushed aside way too quickly IMHO.

I give Edwards credit for brining up the issue. I simply cannot accept the fact that the greatest country in the world has 50 million people not covered by health insurance. It doesn't say a lot about our moral fiber. To not have universal healthcare, in my view, is completely assinine. Furthermore, I think if we are going to achieve it we will do so with something similiar to what Hillary and now Edwards has proposed, rather than a single payer system.

I especially like the idea of "Health Markets." They work for big business and big labor, why shouldn't the rest of us benefit from them?

Giuliani's Halo

Some of you have alluded to the fact that the halo on top of the Mayor's head, due to his actions after September 11th, may not alone be a good indicator of his leadership abilities. I agree. I think the best indicator is the fact that he did what everybody said couldn't be done in New York and lead eight solid years of productive reform as the CEO of the largest city in America and one of the biggest economies in the world. However, some who realize that the best way to beat Rudy is to knock the halo off of his head are writing books.

According to MSNBC:

"Grand Illusion," written by two journalists, says that in the late 1990s Giuliani went against the advice of police and emergency management experts and placed the city's emergency command center in the World Trade Center complex, which had been bombed in 1993 and was a presumed future target.

The command center had to be abandoned on Sept. 11, 2001, after hijacked planes slammed into two skyscrapers next door. In the chaos that ensued Giuliani allowed fire and police commanders to be separated in violation of the city's own protocols, co-authors Wayne Barrett and Dan Collins say...

As a result, police and fire commanders could not coordinate search and rescue efforts. The National Institute of Standards and Technology concluded in a 2005 report that emergency responder lives likely were lost at the trade center because of the lack of communication.

Are they serious? This smells of desperation and fear. Are they really trying to argue that the Mayor of New York City didn't adequately prepare for TERRORISTS FLYING AIRPLANES INTO BUILDINGS, AND THE COMPLETE DESTRUCTION OF TWO OF AMERICA's MOST NOTICEABLE SYMBOLS!?!?

This says something about the state of mind our country is in after September 11th. I think some have forgotten the shock of that day, the disbelief, the fact that nobody considered such a thing could happen outside of a Tom Clancy novel. So sorry that Rudy Giuliani isn't God... Geesh!

People's Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Chapter MXVII

Our brand-spanking new progressive democratic governor Deval Patrick set a land speed record in backing down to the unions over our fiscally embarassing policy of mandating police details for almost all road construction work.

Yesterday, the president of the State Police union, John Coflesky, praised Patrick for declining to take on the detail issue. He said that replacing police with flaggers would not save much money and that there would be a public safety cost.

"I know how construction people feel," he said. "They would much rather have a state trooper or local police officer standing at their detail with cruisers and lights and first-responder capabilities and radios."

Massachusetts is the only state that requires police officers, rather than less-expensive flaggers, on nearly all road work sites.

Emphasis mine. Don't miss that those "construction people" are union members, either. To be fair to Patrick, you can't blame him alone for this, only for being especially full of crap in dodging the issue. Gov. Weld tried and gave up, and IIRC Romney didn't even really try.

Still, I haven't heard any complaints from the other 49 states about how threatened their public safety is by the use of civilian flaggers. Let's face it, directing traffic around holes and bulldozers, while important, is in most cases not quite rocket science. These folks know how to use cones and flags and safety vests and radioa and cell phones. And the practice of using state troopers or local police officers for MOST such work is not just grotesque overkill, it's something our state's law enforcement folks themselves ought to be embarassed by.

I'm also not pleased that so many of our public safety officers are tiring themselves out doing such relatively trivial work on OT details. But it'll probably never change. Few folks have a taste for sticking out their neck on this.

Sunday Deposed Monarch Blogging

I've grown fond of Rob Farley's Sunday Deposed Monarch Blogging. The last entry, Hohenzollern, was particularly interesting (to me, anyway).

Also check out his archive of past Sunday Battleship Blogging. He did that until he ran out of interesting BBs. My favorite entry from that was the BB built by Hungary. They didn't let being landlocked stop them....

Yawn

Yawn.

ISLAMIC terror cells in Britain have been instructed to carry out a series of kidnappings and beheadings of the kind allegedly planned by the nine terrorist suspects arrested in Birmingham last week.

It's one thing to give orders. It's another for them to carry them out in enough numbers and selectivity to exceed the danger levels of normal random crime levels. If they haven't been able to outperform local London criminals since Al'Qaeda's deglobalization, I don't expect that to change.

A dozen people killed by Islamic gunmen in each of a dozen US cities at the exactly same time on a Tuesday morning rush hour, or in the malls on a Saturday afternoon, would bring the United States to a screeching halt.

Why? We have dozens of people killed every hour, much less in a morning. Hard as it is to imagine, somehow the US continues, much as many would like us to live our lives in fear. The Maryland Sniper failed to bring Montgomery County to a halt, once people realized he was just another bad crook. People continued in London after the transit bombings there.

What do I mean by deglobalization? Well, it's clear that Al'Qaeda was dangerous on 9/11, when they killed 3000 men and hurt our economy badly. And in Spain, not long after, where they changed an election. But, since then, we've made their lives tougher by taking away their country, making it hard for their management to travel, and making it hard to move money. Consequently, we've seen the consequences of Al'Qaeda attacks in the West fall off gradually to far off to below danger levels from normal crooks. They're still moderately dangerous in Iraq and Afghanistan - hence deglobalization.

Most Odious Hat to Enter Ring?

Start saving your rotting fruit and vegetables, just in case.

Rudy is a Candidate

Rudy Giuliani has filed papers to run for President with the FEC and will kick-off his official campaign on Saturday in California. I am not committed to anyone yet, but I am leaning toward Rudy more than anyone else. He is closest to me ideologically as a pro-choice, pro-gay rights, small windows theory, tough on terrorism Republican. Furthermore, although this shouldn't be the only criteria, no other candidate by far has had the success in a goverment executive role as the Mayor. The character he showed in New York, governing the ungovernable, is exactly the type of bully pulpit leadership that is needed in the White House. Furthermore, it is exactly the type of leadership that is lacking in regards to the Iraq war or was lacking during the Katrina disaster.

Yes, we will here months of talk about how Rudy is too socially liberal to win the Republican nomination. I think the respect that he carries after his work on September 11th all but trumps that argument, and according to his campaign the polls show it. Republicans, socially liberal or conservative, are hungry for strong leadership just as much as the average American. So much so that I believe they will vote for Rudy because of the things they like about him, and not vote for somebody else because of things they don't like.

It isn't a secret that he has been divorced, roomed with gay friends, had Bernard Kerik as his Chief of Police, and favors abortion... I don't think Republican primary voters are going to learn anything new or anything that will surprise them about the Mayor's past or his stance on issues like gun control and gay equality. Still, the Mayor is beating both Romney and McCain in every major state that will determine the Republican nominee and he continues to be the most popular politician in America. If he does this right, the Mayor has the potential to be elected with a huge mandate for change.

Are You a Liberal Anti-Semite?

Quiz here.

Saw this at Harry's Place. There's also a long comments thread there

Da Game Thread

I've got no idea what the score will, be, other than guessing Indy slightly ahead, but I do have a projection on the number of game plays that won't show up on TV, due to commercials running too late, announcers showing their ugly selves instead of the game, etc., etc: 7. Numbers of those plays that will be utterly key: 1.

Open Thread XLI

...it's all good. Predicting Sunday's outcome, following the studs in the run up to march madness, pigpile on your villain of the week, handicapping the 2008 race...whatever. Bring it.

I'll go with Colts 30, Bears 13, please God let the Celtics get the top pick and Kevin Durant, that Arkin knucklehead, and Guiliani-Obama.

Dell's Back At Dell

Since Dell's a local company, and I've been paying attention to this, I thought I'd blog about Dell's return. In fact, this is something I've been expecting for awhile. But I've also been expecting Ballmer of Microsoft to fall as well, for similar reasons, and that hasn't happened.

Yesterday's fallen CEO, Kevin Rollins, was a smart and able man, able to do just about anything at Dell except run it. Put in Peter Principle terms, CEO was his level of incompetence.

As I see it, he made two big mistakes that cost him the job:

Going Indirect: Michael Dell's mantra was "Be Direct." By selling directly, Dell was able to avoid a big margin chop in a low-margin business. Rollins broke that rule to try and gain market share. Except that Dell's been losing market share, so that's clearly a nonstarter.

Bad Service: During all of Dell's long tenure, service was good. It wasn't such a big point as at IBM, but the web page always worked and was thorough, and people would do a good job of helping you within the limited bounds you expected from Dell. Under Rollins, service failed to meet even those limited bounds. The webpage was buggy, the phone service scripts weren't working, and they got bad at shipping replacements. I had a laptop fail here in Austin, with a 24hr repair warranty. It took them almost 40 hours to replace the motherboard and fix it.

Bad service has bad corollaries in a low-margin business. People stop thinking of Dell products as being worth more than generic PCs. And if a direct-model company's web page has problems, then it's losing customers. Dell's market share and stock price were both sliding for alot of Rollins' tenure.

UPDATE: The Profesora pointed out that said laptop in Austin under warranty wasn't mine, but rather belonged to my employer; they had a very high-end service contract for it, and they still didn't deliver. That also means that it wasn't just little guys who weren't paying much, but even the top tiers of service being frustrated.

Posted by Jon Kay at 05:47 PM | Comments (5)