Its amazing how gullible we all are. We the general public have been taken time and time again by plausible-sounding but fallacious arguments, usually completely unsupported by any credible evidence. Remember the popular advice to drink 8 glasses of water a day (the invention of a Senate staffer, it turns out)?
Stephen Budiansky has written about this in today's New York Times Op Ed page, with a piece about the current fad to "save the environment" by eating only locally-grown foods. His piece Math Lessons for Locavores points out that despite the hype, transportation costs account for only a very small part of the total energy cost of growing and preparing food. And fertilizes and agricultural chemicals account for an even smaller portion. The real energy hogs in the system, it turns out, are our own home preparation and storage energy uses (driving to the store, refrigerators, freezers, dishwashers, ovens).
Friday, August 20, 2010
Recommended: U.S. deficit forecast masks true scope of problem
Reuters Online today has an interesting short piece entitled
U.S. deficit forecast masks true scope of problem. It makes the point yet again (with numbers) that Congress and the administration are doing their best to cover up and keep from the public a very serious fiscal problem, by playing the same accounting games the government has been playing for decades, under both Republicans and Democrats.
The future liabilities for Social Security and especially for Medicare are truly staggering -- $107 TRILLION as of 2009. That is about seven times the size of the U.S. economy and 10 times the size of the outstanding national debt. The nation's finances are already in worse shape than Greece's finances, and we are only insulated from a Greek-style crisis by the fact that the world is still willing to loan us money at low interest by buying our Treasury bonds. That cannot continue indefinitely, and when they stop buying our bonds, or begin to demand a much higher interest rate, we will be in "deep kimshe" (translation: a world of hurt) very quickly.
I can't help but be annoyed that the Washington political elite that got us into this mess (both parties, this is not a Republican vs Democrat thing) are absolutely insulated from the effects of their bad decisions. There is absolutely no accountability for members of Congress, all of whom have their own generous pensions and health plans unaffected by the chaos their poor decisions have created for the rest of us. I can't help but be annoyed, for example, that House Banking Committee chairman Barney Frank (D. Mass) is still pontificating about how Bush created the fiscal crisis, when it was he himself who blocked the Bush administration's attempts to regulate Fanny Mae (Federal National Mortgage Association) and Freddi Mac (Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation), the institutions that set off the whole crisis by massively buying subprime mortgages (as they were instructed to do by Congress, especially Rep. Barney Frank).
U.S. deficit forecast masks true scope of problem. It makes the point yet again (with numbers) that Congress and the administration are doing their best to cover up and keep from the public a very serious fiscal problem, by playing the same accounting games the government has been playing for decades, under both Republicans and Democrats.
The future liabilities for Social Security and especially for Medicare are truly staggering -- $107 TRILLION as of 2009. That is about seven times the size of the U.S. economy and 10 times the size of the outstanding national debt. The nation's finances are already in worse shape than Greece's finances, and we are only insulated from a Greek-style crisis by the fact that the world is still willing to loan us money at low interest by buying our Treasury bonds. That cannot continue indefinitely, and when they stop buying our bonds, or begin to demand a much higher interest rate, we will be in "deep kimshe" (translation: a world of hurt) very quickly.
I can't help but be annoyed that the Washington political elite that got us into this mess (both parties, this is not a Republican vs Democrat thing) are absolutely insulated from the effects of their bad decisions. There is absolutely no accountability for members of Congress, all of whom have their own generous pensions and health plans unaffected by the chaos their poor decisions have created for the rest of us. I can't help but be annoyed, for example, that House Banking Committee chairman Barney Frank (D. Mass) is still pontificating about how Bush created the fiscal crisis, when it was he himself who blocked the Bush administration's attempts to regulate Fanny Mae (Federal National Mortgage Association) and Freddi Mac (Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation), the institutions that set off the whole crisis by massively buying subprime mortgages (as they were instructed to do by Congress, especially Rep. Barney Frank).
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
To Bomb or Not to Bomb......
The Atlantic Monthly September 2010 issue has a lead article by Jeffrey Goldberg entitled "Israel is Getting Ready to Bomb Iran: How, Why - and What It Means." This article has sparked a vigorous debate in Washington and in the blogosphere. A good summary of recent comments and reactions can be found here.
I am impressed at the confidence with which some writers dismiss the Israeli worry about Iran's nuclear capability. We are all, of course, biased by our own experiences, and those who dismiss Israel's worries as overblown are clearly not people who ever lived through a holocaust, or under the constant threat of Hamas rockets and Hezbollah suicide bombers. I'm sure there were those in the late 1930's who thought worries about Hitler's ambitions were overblown.
I suspect that American writers and politicians, sitting safely in their comfortable offices here in America, are poorly equipped to understand either an Israeli fear of another holocaust or yet another major assault by their Arab neighbors, or the apocalyptic visions of the mullahs and their thugs in power in Tehran. We might not view a nuclear Iran as a serious threat, but their nearby neighbors certainly will so long as Iran is led by religious fanatics.
I am impressed at the confidence with which some writers dismiss the Israeli worry about Iran's nuclear capability. We are all, of course, biased by our own experiences, and those who dismiss Israel's worries as overblown are clearly not people who ever lived through a holocaust, or under the constant threat of Hamas rockets and Hezbollah suicide bombers. I'm sure there were those in the late 1930's who thought worries about Hitler's ambitions were overblown.
I suspect that American writers and politicians, sitting safely in their comfortable offices here in America, are poorly equipped to understand either an Israeli fear of another holocaust or yet another major assault by their Arab neighbors, or the apocalyptic visions of the mullahs and their thugs in power in Tehran. We might not view a nuclear Iran as a serious threat, but their nearby neighbors certainly will so long as Iran is led by religious fanatics.
Recommended: How to Win the Clash of Civilizations
Ayaan Hirsi Ali has written an interesting Op Ed in today's Wall Street Journal: How to Win the Clash of Civilizations. She argues that those who predicted a post-Cold War world in which every nation gravitated toward a liberal, Westernized democracy (Fukuyama's "The End of History") are wrong. Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" is proving to be a more accurate prediction, in which nations coalesce into groupings around shared religious and cultural backgrounds, and then struggle with other groupings for power and influence. I find her arguments persuasive, and certainly recent history supports this view. More than that, world history supports this view. World history has been an almost unremitting struggle of competing civilizations and religions and ideas for dominance, and although some progressives would like to believe we have outgrown that phase, there is absolutely no evidence for that view.
I like her lead sentence: "The key advantage of Huntington's famous model is that it describes the world as it is—not as we wish it to be."
I like her lead sentence: "The key advantage of Huntington's famous model is that it describes the world as it is—not as we wish it to be."
Monday, August 16, 2010
President Obama's Problem
Things don't look very good for the Democratic majority in the upcoming mid-term elections. Left-wing columnists try their best to find a positive spin on events, and there certainly are a constant swirl of side issues to excite the press, such as the current debate over President Obama's comments about the proposed New York mosque. But in the end, one issue and one issue only is going to dominate the election results, and that issue is the economy.
Unemployment is high, and shows no signs of easing anytime soon, and certainly not before the election. Economic growth is slowing, falling well below the administration's predictions earlier in the year. The projected federal deficit, already astronomically high, is growing steadily as a result of the lower than expected tax revenues.
Democrats will try their best to blame this on the previous administration, but by now Democrats own these problems in the public mind, so the blame-Bush argument doesn't resonate very much anymore.
Other issues will have a peripheral effect -- public discontent with the health care bill, anger at the outsized Wall Street bonuses for the very people who set off the financial crisis, worry about the massive spending spree of this Democratic Congress, worry about the huge federal debt, discontent over the Iraq and Afghanistan wars -- but in the end it will be the state of the economy that decides the overall election results, and the economy isn't likely to be any better in the next few months.
The Republicans may or may not take control of one or both houses of Congress, but they will certainly make enough gains to halt any further left-wing programs, and perhaps even enough to allow them to deny funding for things they don't agree with, like the health care bill.
The interesting question is whether President Obama will react to loss of control of Congress by moving to the center, as did President Clinton, in order to at least get some bills passed. That would, of course, infuriate his far-left supporters, but might begin to pick up some bipartison support. Or will he remain ideologically committed to more liberal programs that simply can't get the votes anymore in Congress? It poses an interesting problem for the president.
Unemployment is high, and shows no signs of easing anytime soon, and certainly not before the election. Economic growth is slowing, falling well below the administration's predictions earlier in the year. The projected federal deficit, already astronomically high, is growing steadily as a result of the lower than expected tax revenues.
Democrats will try their best to blame this on the previous administration, but by now Democrats own these problems in the public mind, so the blame-Bush argument doesn't resonate very much anymore.
Other issues will have a peripheral effect -- public discontent with the health care bill, anger at the outsized Wall Street bonuses for the very people who set off the financial crisis, worry about the massive spending spree of this Democratic Congress, worry about the huge federal debt, discontent over the Iraq and Afghanistan wars -- but in the end it will be the state of the economy that decides the overall election results, and the economy isn't likely to be any better in the next few months.
The Republicans may or may not take control of one or both houses of Congress, but they will certainly make enough gains to halt any further left-wing programs, and perhaps even enough to allow them to deny funding for things they don't agree with, like the health care bill.
The interesting question is whether President Obama will react to loss of control of Congress by moving to the center, as did President Clinton, in order to at least get some bills passed. That would, of course, infuriate his far-left supporters, but might begin to pick up some bipartison support. Or will he remain ideologically committed to more liberal programs that simply can't get the votes anymore in Congress? It poses an interesting problem for the president.
The Problem of a Nuclear Iran
There is no doubt that the nuclear threat posed by Iran is a difficult problem. Once Iran has a working nuclear weapon, the already-impossible Middle East becomes several orders of magnitude more difficult, and the range of policy and military options open to ourselves and our allies is sharply reduced. There are no good options open to us now, but once Iran has a nuclear weapon, there are only very bad options left.
Consider. If we do nothing, Iran gets a working nuclear capability in perhaps 1-3 more years. Once Iran has a nuclear capability, probably many of our smaller Middle Eastern allies will find it safer to side with Iran than ourselves, and our support will rapidly erode, while Iran’s influence, already greatly increased by our own Iraq and Afghanistan misadventures, will blossom. Now Iran, together with its proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas, will dominate the oil-rich Middle East and be in a position to control a major part of the world’s oil supply.
One could, of course, hope that new sanctions will finally work, but there is little evidence either that the current sanctions have made any significant difference, nor that world governments can agree on new sanctions that will have any more teeth than the current ones, nor be observed any better than the current ones.
Suppose our inaction finally drives Israel to strike the Iranian nuclear sites out of desperation – after all, Iran’s publically-stated and oft-repeated policy is to annihilate Israel, and I can hardly see the Jewish state allowing a second holocaust if they can prevent it. One might think we are well out of it, but of course we aren’t. No one in the Middle East will believe we didn’t help the Israelis, so we (including our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan) will suffer retribution along with Israel.
More than that, a strike on Iran will no doubt unleash a blitz of rocket attacks on Israel, followed of necessity by a massive retaliation by Israel, and we will soon have a third full-blown Middle Eastern war on our hands. And of course Iran can bring the world’s oil supply to a halt in hours by simply mining the Strait of Hormuz.
Nor is there any realistic prospect that we can stay out of the conflict once it starts. Could any American president or political party survive if it allowed Israel to be destroyed by its neighbors? Could any administration survive if it refused to help a democratic ally, and a Jewish one at that, prevent a second holocaust? Could any American government allow the nation’s oil supply to be cut off without a military response? I think not.
About the only workable option we have at the moment is to credibly threaten our own military action against Iran if they don’t desist in the nuclear development in ways (meaning intrusive inspections) that assure everyone they have really quite the business. The Iranian leadership isn’t dumb. They want to stay in power. Faced with complete destruction or staying in power with all the wealth and perks it seems to be bringing them, they will probably (though with much bluster) back down.
The key word is “credibly”. If they don’t really believe us, the threat is meaningless. Unfortunately, our political class doesn’t seem to be capable of issuing credible military threats. So their timidity in the face of a really serious threat will probably eventually lead us into just the nightmare military confrontation they are trying to avoid.
This is another case where having the capability to deploy massive military power can actually prevent a war, but only if the opposition thinks our government is really willing to use force if it must.
Consider. If we do nothing, Iran gets a working nuclear capability in perhaps 1-3 more years. Once Iran has a nuclear capability, probably many of our smaller Middle Eastern allies will find it safer to side with Iran than ourselves, and our support will rapidly erode, while Iran’s influence, already greatly increased by our own Iraq and Afghanistan misadventures, will blossom. Now Iran, together with its proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas, will dominate the oil-rich Middle East and be in a position to control a major part of the world’s oil supply.
One could, of course, hope that new sanctions will finally work, but there is little evidence either that the current sanctions have made any significant difference, nor that world governments can agree on new sanctions that will have any more teeth than the current ones, nor be observed any better than the current ones.
Suppose our inaction finally drives Israel to strike the Iranian nuclear sites out of desperation – after all, Iran’s publically-stated and oft-repeated policy is to annihilate Israel, and I can hardly see the Jewish state allowing a second holocaust if they can prevent it. One might think we are well out of it, but of course we aren’t. No one in the Middle East will believe we didn’t help the Israelis, so we (including our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan) will suffer retribution along with Israel.
More than that, a strike on Iran will no doubt unleash a blitz of rocket attacks on Israel, followed of necessity by a massive retaliation by Israel, and we will soon have a third full-blown Middle Eastern war on our hands. And of course Iran can bring the world’s oil supply to a halt in hours by simply mining the Strait of Hormuz.
Nor is there any realistic prospect that we can stay out of the conflict once it starts. Could any American president or political party survive if it allowed Israel to be destroyed by its neighbors? Could any administration survive if it refused to help a democratic ally, and a Jewish one at that, prevent a second holocaust? Could any American government allow the nation’s oil supply to be cut off without a military response? I think not.
About the only workable option we have at the moment is to credibly threaten our own military action against Iran if they don’t desist in the nuclear development in ways (meaning intrusive inspections) that assure everyone they have really quite the business. The Iranian leadership isn’t dumb. They want to stay in power. Faced with complete destruction or staying in power with all the wealth and perks it seems to be bringing them, they will probably (though with much bluster) back down.
The key word is “credibly”. If they don’t really believe us, the threat is meaningless. Unfortunately, our political class doesn’t seem to be capable of issuing credible military threats. So their timidity in the face of a really serious threat will probably eventually lead us into just the nightmare military confrontation they are trying to avoid.
This is another case where having the capability to deploy massive military power can actually prevent a war, but only if the opposition thinks our government is really willing to use force if it must.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Recommended: The Future of the Armed Forces
The American Interest, Sept-Oct 2010, has a good collection of articles on The Future of the The Armed Forces, one article on each of the service branches. Well worth reading. There are three major dynamics at work here - the effect of the prolonged wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the shift in mission to counterinsurgency, and the budget problems. These articles help one to understand these dynamics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
