Been a little preoccupied with my current reading. Right now it's Origins of war and the preservation of peace by Donald Kagan and Soul of Battle by VDH. I have just recently finished Carnage and Culture by Hanson within the last week or so.

For some reason I got half way through Jenkins' Churchill and got distracted from finishing it. Kids will do that to you.

For those of you unaware, Project Gutenberg has the entirety of classical works only a click away. As a treat, I have downloaded and formatted several for easier viewing that will consume much of my reading time. I have on my agenda Herodutus' Histories, Thucydides Peloponnesian Wars, and the works of Xenophon. Should take some time, but will be well worth it.

Though I've read through parts of Aristotle's Politics and Ethics, I need to do a thorough reading.

After all that, on to Caesar's Gallic Wars.

What would I do without the computer?

"Half of all bankruptcies are due to medical bills" so goes the arguments of the bankruptcy bill opponents. But the truth is out there. Thanks to Gail Heriot, the Harvard study that is cited as the source of the "half of" argument, has this vital information:

the study classifies "uncontrolled gambling," "drug addiction," "alcohol addiction," and the birth or adoption of a child as "a medical cause," regardless of whether medical bills are involved. Yes, there may be situations in which a researcher might legitimately want to classify those conditions as "medical," but a study that is being used to prove that Americans are going bankrupt as a result of crushing medical bills is not one of them. A father who has gambled away his family's mortgage payment is not likely the victim of crushing medical bills. Similarly, new parents who find they can no longer afford their previous lifestyle now that one of them has to stay home with the baby will usually find the obstetrician's bill the least of their problems. Babies are a financial hardship even when hospitals give them away free.

As I posted on this topic, giving drug addicts and gamblers bankruptcy protection forces me to subsidize their "disease". I don't see too many people standing at the track feeding gamblers $20 bills.

So, what's the real story?

At least one of the authors — Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, a Cambridge Hospital internist and associate professor of medicine at Harvard, makes it clear that she does indeed have an agenda — health-care coverage that is universal and comprehensive. "Covering the uninsured isn't enough. We must also upgrade and guarantee continuous coverage for those who have insurance," she said in a statement. She went on to condemn employers and politicians who advocate what she called "stripped-down plans, so riddled with co-payments, deductibles and exclusions that serious illness leads straight to bankruptcy."

Either the bill's opponents are ignorant fools or lying fools. I'll let you be the judge.

Iran rejects US nuclear incentive of economic agreements in exchange for ending their nuclear program. Iran's response:

"No pressure, bribe or threat can make Iran give up its legitimate right" to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, said an Iranian spokesman.

This is the ultimate test of the EU's clout, power, and prestige. They are as committed to a non-nuclear Iran as we are. In fact, they have far more incentive as they, including the Russians, are well within the range of Iranian nukes. And the president knows this:

US President George W Bush said on Friday: "I'm pleased that we are speaking with one voice with our European friends. I look forward to working with our European friends to make it abundantly clear to the Iranian regime that the free world will not tolerate them having a nuclear weapon

"I look forward to working with our European friends to make it abundantly clear to the Iranian regime that the free world will not tolerate them having a nuclear weapon."

So, the ball is in the EU's court. Do they have a stick to go with their carrot? And if not, then what.

My greatest fear about out "going it alone in Iraq" was not that we didn't have to, but that we actually did. And we did not because we couldn't get our "allies" to join us, but because they couldn't offer up any help. If anything the Iraqi war has done is expose the EU to be a paper tiger.

Thomas Friedman, who on occasion is profound, had this to say last week:

But what really concerns me is Europe. Europe's armies were designed for static defense against the Soviet Union. But the primary security challenges to Europe today come from the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa. If you put all the E.U. armies together, they total around two million soldiers in uniform - almost the same size as the U.S. armed forces. But there is one huge difference - only about 5 percent of the European troops have the training, weaponry, logistical and intelligence support and airlift capability to fight a modern, hot war outside of Europe. (In the U.S. it is 70 percent in crucial units.)

The rest of the European troops - some of whom are unionized! - do not have the training or tools to fight alongside America in a hot war. They might be good for peacekeeping, but not for winning a war against a conventional foe. God save the Europeans if they ever felt the need to confront a nuclear-armed Iran. U.S. defense spending will be over $400 billion in 2005. I wish it could be less, but one reason it can't is that the United States of Europe is spending less than half of what we are. And the U.S. and E.U. really are the pillars of global stability.

The fight two years ago at the UN over Iraq was far more about Europe than Iraq. The emperor ahs no clothes.

US in policy shift on Iran trade
The US says it will drop its opposition to Iran joining the World Trade Organization, to encourage it to give up its alleged nuclear ambitions.

Carrot:

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told Reuters news agency: "We will make clear that we will lift our objections to an Iranian application to the WTO, and that we are prepared to lift an objection to the licensing of spare parts for Iranian commercial aircraft."

Stick?

Ms Rice insisted: "This is most assuredly giving the Europeans a stronger hand, not rewarding the Iranians."
...
But they made clear that Europe would back US attempts to refer Tehran to the UN Security Council - which has the power to impose sanctions - if it resumed uranium enrichment or failed to live up to its international obligations while talks were under way.

Ultimately, this could be a positive as increased trade will only further alienate the mullahs from the population. However, this could also be seen as capitulation by the US and embolden others. What is yet to be seen is this: if the Iranians reneg on their committments what do the US and EU do?

The EU will most likely seek another round of talks, while the US will demand sanctions. Is Iran going to be another Iraq, an issue which divides Europe, as well as Europe and the US?

posted by Robert Mandel

3/11/2005 07:43:00 PM

link | |

Another gem from Professor Krugman: Slanting Social Security.

Many people involved in the debate over Social Security's future worry that the 2005 trustees' report will be slanted in favor of privatization.

Politics in Washington DC? Who'd have thought.

the White House has been using taxpayers' money to sell its privatization plans in ways that would have been considered out of bounds for any previous administration.

Anyone remember the Hillary Express in '93, with a "there, but for the grace of God, go I" a day sob story?
Only the most partisan of hacks, frauds, and liars will admit that there is no crisis in social security. A simple look at population distribution revelas a disturbing trend, as the numbers of contributors to beneficiaries continues to shrink. And in reality, it doesn't matter whether it's 2018, or 2025, the meteor is on a collision course with earth.

Look for an attempt to conflate Social Security with Medicare. Look for an emphasis on "infinite horizon" estimates, which the American Academy of Actuaries, in a letter to trustees, said "provide little if any useful information about the program's long-range finances and indeed are likely to mislead anyone lacking technical expertise ... into believing that the program is in far worse financial condition than is actually indicated."

Considering his other prognistications, I'd say we're farily safe.

Today I applied for membership in the Alliance of free bloggers. As you might notice in the upper left hand corner, the the good professor has made his sentiments known regarding my city (required point #2). I still need to blogroll the alliance members and declare a specialty, let me at least get some points for optional activity number 3:

Glenn Reynolds claims to be a libertarian to appear less appalling to his lefty colleagues, but in reality he's a chruch going born again member of the religious right.

Thanks.

The senate passed the bankruptcy bill today, on a vote of 74-25. The number of votes for it, in this highly partisan senate, tells me the bill is both too weak and filled with too many holes. However, those opposed to it have a completely bankrupt logic.

There are two issues that underlie opposition to this bill, and both of them I find repugnant. The first is that we collectively will force ourselves and others to do what we would not otherwise do voluntarily, and the second is that people are incapable of running their own lives and making proper decisions.

I'll address point one first.

This has to be what Aristotle referred to when he called democracy the form of government of the needy, that the indigent, not men of property are the rulers. It must also be what de Tocqueville referred to when he lamented the day that we find we can vote ourselves money. What is particularly pernicious about this is that it forces me and every other responsible citizen to pay for the largesse and irresponsibility of others. We pay higher premiums on everything, from credit card rates to bank loans, and this cost is subsidizing what is essentially the malfeasance of consumers.

Point two is probably the more evil of the two. People complain about how credit card companies targt them when they're young, or unemployed, or in college, or any other various or sundry "vulnerable" states. In other words, we are unable to control our selves, we can't make responisble decisions, and we are unable to discern right from wrong, good from bad. The poor helpless wretches!

Of course there are legitimate bankruptcies, and there are certainly loopholes that allow businesses and wealthy people to slip through. Those need to be addressed. As I am not a bankruptcy lawyer, I don't know the laws nor the technical details. I am only concerned with the perception that somehow evil greedy companies are exploiting the masses, and the politicians that are stoking this resentment.

Unfortunately, the belief that it is alright to have, actually to force others to pay for that which we can't or won't has taken hold among a large percentage of the population. Nothing is anyone's fault anymore, nobody is responsible for anything, and if all else fails, sue. Pass the cost onto others, those too stupid, too honest, too decent to play the game.

hat tip: Belmont Club


Assistant Professor of History Josh Landis is enthralled with the pro-Syrian rallies taking place in Lebanon. He has effusive praise for the machinations of a brutal dictatorship and terror supporting regime.

Forgive me for not reporting on all the exciting events here. My computer has gone to the shop and I must take refuge in the computer café’s. The demonstration in Beirut yesterday turned the world on its head here. The spirit of Syrians was lifted out of the gutter and sent soaring. All the Lebanese are not against Syria and with George Bush. The crowds that gathered in Riad Al-Solh Square were estimated by al-Jazeera to be 1.5 million. BBC reported them to be 200,000. Whoever was counting they were big, much bigger than the crowds that came out in favor of “the opposition.”
...
The relationship with Syria was handled with great skill and care. When he finished his speech with the words, “Long live Syria.” Everyone here went wild with joy. After weeks of feeling like crap and as if the whole world – even the Arabs – hated them, Syrians saw and heard the gratitude they believe they deserve for ending the civil war and protecting Lebanon. They know they are not alone. The Arabist rhetoric of the Baath Party and Bashar al-Asad still resonates in the hearts of millions. Nasrallah was careful not to suggest that Lebanon needed Syrian forces on its soil or that it could not stand alone. Quite the contrary, “Lebanon has proven that it is the strongest Arab country,” Nasrallah said.

While I'm sure Arabist rhetoric of the Bath party resonates for millions, the idea of democracy and ending the thugocracies like Assad's resonates in the hearts of many times that.

It is amazing that a professor of history, an American citizen, would be "excited" about pro-Syrian demonstrations. Syria is a country that has funded terrorists for decades, responsible for killing thousands, including Americans, and is the main instigator of problems in Iraq today. If there was so much support for Syria in Lebanon, then Assad wouldn't be withdrawing his troops. If there was so much support for Syria in Lebanon, then why did the pro-Syrian forces adopt the flgs and banners of the anti-Syrian demonstrators?

And who is leading the pro-Syrian rally? Nasrallah, the leader of the terrorist group Hezbollah. The professor sides with brutal dictators and terrorists. Well, it is as a university, so we shouldn't be shocked. And next week, expect the LA Times to do a puff piece on Assad.

As the democratic party is trapped in the deanmobile and heads for the perilous cliffs ahead, Matt Yglesias finds his deus ex machina to save them from political oblivion in Four Freedoms.

Freedom, it seems, is on the march, and it's giving many liberals mixed feelings. We had it pretty easy for the year or so in which the downward spiral of Iraq consistently disproved the administration's rosy predictions. But now the president's forward strategy of freedom has started racking up successes. This seems to present a quandary for liberals, who on the one hand want good things to happen in the world but on the other don’t want George W. Bush to get any credit for them. The result is cognitive dissonance.

Uh huh. Maybe the "downward spiral" was as much media creation as reality. All he had to do was read Chrenkoff, Blackfive, Austin Bay, Mudville Gazette, among others. Maybe the optimism was for a reason, that those of us who chose to read the reports from those who were actuually there as opposed to reading those who wished we weren't. And why would liberals have mixed feelings? Political schadenfreude?

The first is that recent democratic gains, such as those in Ukraine, Egypt, and Lebanon, are not the fruit of neoconservative policies but of liberal ones.

Keep telling yourself that. As if Saddam's head on a proverbial platter didn't put a whole lot of fear into a few dictators.

In Egypt, progress came about by America doing not much more than talking about political reform ...in Lebanon, the long-held neoconservative goal of reducing Syrian influence was achieved through a U.S. policy that the neocons would have laughed out of the room had it been proposed by John Kerry: support for a French-sponsored United Nations resolution

Exactly. Mubarak is so susceptible to nice words, all those billions were for naught. I forgot the UN's wonderful track record including stunning successes in Rwanda, Congo, Sudan, Bosnia, Iraq, etc.

Bush first called for an elected leadership of the Palestinian Authority in 2002. We invaded Iraq in 2003. The election was not held until 2005. The difference-maker, obviously, was not the election but the death of Yasir Arafat, something that can in no way be attributed to the invasion of Iraq.

Bush specifically disavowed Arafat as an agent of peace, called him a terrorist, and said the failures of the "roadmap" were Arafat's. Yglesias surely knows this, that it was Bush's policies towards Arafat, and Sharon's fence and Hamas assassinations, that forced the Palestinian's hand.

Opposition demands to be permitted to run candidates were an inevitable consequence of the calendar. ...The movement to kick Syria out of Lebanon, meanwhile, was long in the making

Can he really believe this? Egypt liberalization and Syria withdrawals were inevitable? I always thought Syria played by Hama rules.

All of which brings us to the second reason that liberals should be dissonance-free. To put things in the crassest partisan terms: Stunning foreign-policy success breeds domestic failure. Ronald Reagan and George Bush Senior may have earned themselves a place in the history books for successfully managing the end of the Cold War. But in the realm of partisan politics, all they did was cost the Republican Party its best issue: anti-communism. The lack of the red menace took the issue off the table and enabled the Democrats to return to power on the strength of the slogan, "It's the economy, stupid."

Liberals still ought to address our decades-old inability to win national-security debates. But if the next three years go well enough, that may become unnecessary.

Yglesias makes the point better than any Republican ever could, that democrats simply cannot be trusted with national security. In other words, the democrats best chances are stunning succes on the international stage, that way they can sneak in under the radar. Lest we win the war on terror for security reasons, no, the real reason to win it is so democrats can have a shot at winning the white house.

Too bad for the Republicans that they lost the anti-communism issue, and too bad if they lose the anti-terrorism issue as well. It's okay to be crass. Just don't question their patriotism.

Surely Yglesias has to know that the sanctions agasint Saddam's regime were going to expire,and that France, Russia and others were already getting their hooks into that market. Surely he knows that Saddam was the single greatest source of instability in the middle east, and surely he knows that Saddam funded terror, and was the linchpin of the kleptocratic rulers. His overthrow and arrest sent shock waves throughout the middle east. It only started with Khadafi.

If he doesn't know that, he is an ignorant fool. If he does know this, than he is a lying fool. Either way, he can spin it however he likes, no machine is going to save him and his compadres from the fact that Bush just might have been right about the middle east after all.

All those who lamented the "mishandling" of post-invasion Iraq should keep this thought in mind. How could things be going so much better if they were going so poorly? There was no famine, no civil war, no mass refugee population. Sure, Iraq proved a difficult task, but never, ever, was the issue in doubt. Talk about dissonance.

It's nice to hear democrats champion the spread of democracy. If they keep it up, we might actually be fooled into thinking they were for it all along.

John Fund notes that Hillary Clinton and John Kerry are pushing the "Count Every Vote Act" which would force states to allow voters to register to vote on election day, make the election day a national holiday, and would go so far as to allow conovicted felons to vote.

Why not?

Forget for a moment the obvious partisan political reasons, that they figure ex-felons would vote predominantly democratic. I wouldn't hazard to guess why, but I imagine they would. Forget for a moment that most states bar felons from voting. And forget for a moment the pesky constitutional delegation of the "times, manner, and places" of elections to the states. Also, there should be a first cousin of Godwin's law, one that invalidates any argument the moment someone mentions a return to "Jim Crow".

The simple answer is that there is no reason why not. We have turned almost every aspect of our lives over to the federal government. From health care and retirement to highways and education, there is simply no detail too small, no expenditure too insignificant. I hear many complaints about No Child Left Behind where I work. What I never hear anyone complain about is that the federal government has no business involving itself in the education of California's children.

So, why not force the states to alter their voting procedures. For the past 60 odd years we have expected, even welcomed, federal intrusion into all areas of our lives. It would just be one more aspect that the federal government takes over.

The saddest thing of all is that you'd have to offer many and various arguments against a proposal like this, when the simplest is all that suffices. It simply isn't in the federal government's powers to do so. Sadly, nobody cares about that any more.