Posted 1:36 PM by Robert

Mr. Market: Towards A Theory Of Warren Buffett?

Warren Buffett is often described without irony as a "sage" or "oracle" - indeed, the "sage" or "oracle" from Omaha.

Mr. Buffett's impressive fortune is often said to depend on a brilliant understanding of - and investments in - valuable consumer "brands," and, interestingly, insurance. His letters to his stockholders are treasured by many. Unlike other hugely wealthy people - including his reported friend Bill Gates, the only person reportedly wealthier then he is - Mr. Buffett has cast himself as a curiously broad, if not exactly general, business and social gadfly, often with respect to topics not within his known competencies (one is rather inclined to accept that he probably has valuable opinions on many thngs not included in any recognized "competency"). Some of his political positions border on those of a crank: he has, for example, called for things like unilateral nuclear disarmament - although he says a nuclear attack on the United States within the next few years is a "virtual certainty."

A number of books and other materials both by and about Mr. Buffett purport to reveal the "revered" Mr. Buffett, his investment "method" or "secrets" (sometimes, the "Warren Buffett Way") and what is often described as his "wisdom." He is generally well regarded. By about 4-to-1, respondents to at least one unscientific on-line poll say Mr. Buffett is a "straight shooter," and not "full of baloney." But no sensible person could believe that a man who has made more than $30 Billion by investing reveals any meaningful portion of his "method" in a book anyone can buy for, say, twenty bucks - or check out of the public library for free. He is popularly regarded as favoring good corporate and fund governance structures and opposing boards that are "cocker spaniels, not Dobermans." But Mr. Buffett has sat on many corporate boards, and he has apparently never acted like a Doberman. After Disney's acquisition of ABC/CapCities, one might have thought that Mr. Buffett would have something to say about the Disney board - among the most notoriously passive boards in the country, but Berkshire Hathaway sold its Disney holding - leaving Roy Disney and his partner, Mr. Gold (neither of them "independent" as the NYSE defines that term) to play the role of Dobermans on the Disney board. The seven member board of directors of Berkshire Hathaway includes Mr. Buffett, his wife, his son, Charles Munger (Mr. Buffett's long time friend and bbusiness partner, and a founder of the law firm Munger Tolles & Olson - which continues to represent and receive fees from Berkshire Hathaway) and, of course, Mr. Olson. Revised New York Stock Exchange rules do not consider Berkshire Hathaway's board to be sufficiently "independent" - and Mr. Buffett is searching for additional directors from among the company's long-time, happy shareholders - which is not exactly the first place one would look for substantive "independence" from Berkshire management.

His coverage in the media is remarkable. In addition to what is described above, the Washington Post has editorialized Mr. Buffett as a far-seeing financier. Are "wisdom," "revered," "sage," "oracle" and "far-seeing" terms one often hears applied to the often-villified Bill Gates, for example? But investors who bought and have held Mircosoft stock since, say, the mid 1980's have made much more than those who invested in Berkshire-Hathaway at that time. How about John Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie or even J.P. Morgan - who designed the Federal Reserve System which many believe to be the bedrock of American and world prosperity?

The most striking aspect of so many of the publicly available materials respecting Mr. Buffett is that they are obviously overreaching, wrong and incoherent - while he is rarely any of those. For example, Mr. Buffett is highly active in restructuring many of the companies in which he invests, including establishing very specific executive compensation schemes which pointedly exclude executive stock options, but a typical howler about him asserts: "Solely due to his stock picking abilities, Buffett is consistently one of the five richest men in America." What ties together the often apparently inconsistent strands of Mr. Buffett's considerable presence? How much of an understanding of Mr. Buffett can be garnered without pretending to second guess or understand his indisputable and probably largely unreachable investing genius or delving into his irrelelevant personal life or childhood?

Posted 1:36 PM by Robert

Is Germany A Friend?

According to the FAZ:

If American troops invade Iraq and come under chemical or biological attack they will not be helped by German troops stationed in Kuwait, who are armed with special equipment for detecting contamination from such weapons, according to [German] Defense Minister Peter Struck.

Posted 1:13 PM by Robert

For The Love Of God, Maguire!

The MinuteMan walls up Nicholas Kristof and (mostly) TAPPED.

"Yes," I said, "for the love of God!"

Posted 1:08 PM by Robert

Another Day ...

... another nutty Atrios post blown up by Steve Verdon.

Posted 9:40 PM by Robert

Such An Odd Argument

JP Morgan and Citigroup have pointed out they were not responsible for the way Enron accounted for the many deals which those banks created for Enron. On Thursday Citigroup said the latest report from a court-appointed investigator into the bankrupt company's off-balance-sheet transactions "shows the scope and size of the fraud perpetrated by Enron and condemns the techniques repeatedly approved by Arthur Andersen [then Enron's auditor] and Enron's other advisers."

But JP Morgan and Citigroup both knew exactly how Enron was accounting for those deals in exquisite detail and long before the general public knew those details.

Posted 9:32 PM by Robert

White Hot

The Financial Times reports:

Intelligence officers on the trail of Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaeda leader, said on Thursday the hunt was now “white hot” and had been narrowed down to a coastal strip close to Pakistan’s border with Iran. .... “What is clear is that the likelihood of picking up bin Laden this week, as opposed to last week, has soared,” a senior western intelligence source said. “Following the arrest of Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, bin Laden must now be concerned that Mohammed might decide to talk.”

Posted 3:38 PM by Robert

Dead On Quick

The Los Angeles Times and California Democrats are in a huff over this.

Posted 1:47 PM by Robert

Arbitrary And Capricious

By a 5-to-4 vote, the Supreme Court has just upheld the California "three strikes" law, which imposes for multiple offenses prison terms vastly longer and harsher than would be warranted or Constitutionally permissible for the last offense alone. The Court essentially held that even where a punishment would be constitutionally prohibited as excessive for a crime which is a first offense, the state may impose that punishment for the same crime if the crime is one of a series of crimes. The Court based this decision on its conclusion that the state has an interest in deterring repeat offenders that goes beyond the particular final crime, and that the severe punishment authorized where a crime comes at the end of a series of crimes is not "grossly disproportional" given that state interest. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas provided the fourth and fifth vote but refused to sign the Justice O'Connor's opinion because they reject its premise that the Eighth Amendment requires proportionality in sentencing. In their view, the Eighth Amendment restricts only types of punishment, not length of sentences.

The case is interesting for many reasons, but especially with respect to the Constitutional status of the death penalty. A little while ago a green grocer was shot in a store robbery near the abode of the Man Without Qualities. The grocer did not die. Investigation revealed that his assailant had been previously convicted of seriously injuring several other people, either intending to kill them or completely indifferent as to whether they died. It occurred to me that such circumstances are likely rather common - especially in prison assaults where one convict attacks another.

But it is said that such assailants cannot be executed for their repeated acts of attempted murder unless somebody actually dies. The Supreme Court appears to have held that imposition of the death penalty for crimes not involving death is prohibited by the Eighth Amendment ban on "cruel and unusual punishment:"

For [a] rapist to be executed in Georgia, it must ... be found not only that he committed rape but also that one or more of the following aggravating circumstances were present: (1) that the rape was committed by a person with a prior record of conviction for a capital felony; (2) that the rape was committed while the offender was engaged in the commission of another capital felony, or aggravated battery; or (3) the rape "was outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman in that it involved torture, depravity of mind, or aggravated battery to the victim." Here, the first two of these aggravating circumstances were alleged and found by the jury. Neither of these circumstances, nor both of them together, change our conclusion that the death sentence imposed on Coker is a disproportionate punishment for rape. Coker had prior convictions for capital felonies - rape, murder, and kidnaping - but these prior convictions do not change the fact that the instant crime being punished is a rape not involving the taking of life.

Such Supreme Court language - and similar language - has often been said to bar the death penalty where no life is actually taken. But does it, and should it? The death penalty may be imposed against all members of a conspiracy or joint felony even where only one member actually takes the life. So it is certainly clear that the Supreme Court does not construe the Eighth Amendment as requiring that the death penalty be imposed only against those who actually kill.

What about "repeat offenders?" Suppose a criminal shoots someone with intent to kill and the bullet barely misses the victim's heart. Suppose the criminal does this on three occasions. In other words, assume the criminal three times actually intends to kill, actually commits an act designed to kill and only avoids killing by chance. Why should the chance survival of his victims cause such a person to be treated under the Constitution as less culpable than a person who merely participates in a felony during which a comrade takes a life? The Court's recognition of the state's interest in suppressing repeat offenders should justify considering such a series of attempted murders as "involving the taking of life." The Supreme Court's distinctions here - if they are given their common construction - are themselves arbitrary and capricious.

Those who repeatedly demonstrate intent to kill and commit acts designed to kill that almost kill should be treated as what they manifestly are - killers. Society should not have to wait for someone to actually die at the hands of such a repeat offender in order to impose the death penalty. The easiest case should be an attempted murder by a person serving a life sentence for a prior murder. What excuse can there be for not executing such a criminal if murderers are being executed in the same state? Or is the state limited to sending him to prison for a second life?

Posted 12:20 PM by Robert

Higher Voltage Bozos

Steve Verdon's defrocking of how some of the Higher Voltage Bozos of the blogosphere's left lobe misconceive California's power market is a must read.

TAPPED notes that this is Atrios' single weekly longer-than-a-sentence post. Given the intellectual content of his extrusion, Atrios might want to consider eliminating that weekly feature for the benefit of everyone involved. It's easier for Atrios to hide his incoherent nuttiness when he keeps his posts to a sentence or, better, a fragment.

Posted 9:40 AM by Robert

Out With The Old, In With The New

Mickey Kaus has referred to Senator Kerry's mysterious loathesomeness.

But the loathesomeness is less and less mysterious. The Senator, long believed by much of the world to be of Irish-American heritage, but who claims he never encouraged and often corrected such a view, seems to be a simple liar on the point:

''For those of us who are fortunate to share an Irish ancestory, we take great pride in the contributions that Irish-Americans, from the time of the Revolutionary War to the present, have made to building a strong and vibrant nation,'' Kerry told Senate colleagues in a March 18, 1986 statement.

At least the Senator should be credited with understanding that this lie might work at the Senate level, but that media scrutiny gets more intense as one moves towards the White House, so he would have to reveal his old lie and tell a new lie about never having told the old lie in the first place. Mickey's description of the possible source of the Senator's characterological flaws is again proven out: How dumb is that? It's calculation, but also incompetent calculation ...

From Al Gore to John Kerry, the Democrats seem to have learned only half of the central Clinton technique. So, boys and girls, listen up: It's not just important to lie - it's also important to tell lies that are hard to check (the best, of course, is the all-purpose "I do not recall...") and to intimidate and/or compromise the people who could do the checking.

When you spell, you begin with A, B, C.

When you count, you begin with 1, 2, 3.

Sheesh.

Link from DRUDGE.

UPDATE: Possible explanation for Kerry: Claim the 1986 statement was conceived on Saint Patrick's Day - when everyone is Irish or thinks they are. Polish up the details.

Posted 9:46 PM by Robert

Can We Talk?

Or, more exactly, do Mindles and Jane read each others posts?

Posted 12:57 PM by Robert

This Is Spinal TAPPED II

An astute reader writes to note that while TAPPED seems rather confused over the definition of "economist," many dictionaries are in substantial agreement - and not one of them mentions any requirement for a PhD in economics or, for that matter, any subject:

Cambridge International Dictionary of English: "An economist is a person who studies or has a special knowledge of economics. "

Merriam Webster Dictionary: "a specialist in economics"

Wordsmyth: "a person who has expertise in the study of economics."

American Heritage Dictionary: A specialist in economics

Now, I suppose we might try going farther back for the traditional definition:

Webster's 1828 Dictionary: "One who manages domestic or other concerns with frugality; one who expends money, time or labor judiciously, and without waste."

And then there's this suggestion from Money Words: "Person who studies the economy professionally"

Astute reader further comments:

Ah, so you need to get paid... Actually, I would venture that that defines a "professional economist," a term which would otherwise be redundant. So the basic challenge... is there anyplace anywhere other than TAPPED anywhere on the Web which argues that only PhD's can be economists? I can't find it.

One more note: I have been qualified as an expert economist numerous times in court, but other than a little good-natured ribbing, nobody asks me too much about my lack of a PhD. When one of my colleagues was on the stand, he was asked:

Q: Mr. G___... it is MR G____ isn't it? I mean you don't have a PhD, do you?

A: No I don't.

Q: Shouldn't that matter in the jury's evaluation of your testimony?

A: Only if my mother were on the jury.

So here's the new contest:

CAN ANYONE FIND ANYONE, ANYPLACE ANYWHERE OTHER THAN TAPPED WHO ARGUES THAT ONLY PHD'S CAN BE "ECONOMISTS?"

Operators are standing by to take your calls!!!

And then there's this from Mindles Dreck.

UPDATE: Following the lead of another astute reader, we add to the list of brilliant economists and Nobel Prize winners sans doctorates Ronald Coase, who holds a "mere" bachelor degree from the London School of Economics.

Posted 12:35 PM by Robert

The Inevitably Good French

The Man Without Qualities has predicted that once France becomes convinced that war with Iraq is inevitable, France would likely begin to do the right thing - at least under the assumption that French opposition is not a matter of principle (which no sensible person seems to thinks it is). While others have argued that such a war has been inevitable for a long time, the Man Without Qualities has consistently pointed out that the French have not been signaling that they see it that way.

That may now be changing. The French government is reportedly indicating that it will not veto a second Security Council resolution authorizing war with Iraq. Of course, it is still possible that the French are confident that they will not need to use their veto. But recent reports that the United States believes it will be able to muster a Security Council majority including Russia and China are not consistent with such French confidence.

Mr. Chirac spent the weekend in Algeria, and it is interesting to imagine the nature of his conversations with the Algerian government. It has become increasingly clear that France under Mr. Chirac has sought to carve out for itself the role of an international go-between, a middle man who can - for a fee - moderate between American power and any of (1) the increasingly ossified nations of "Old Europe," (2) the needful, weak nations newly emerged from the remains of the Second World or (3) the nutty, corrupt, and/or deranged nations of the Third World. France apparently planned to do all this through a web or treaties and international pressure mechanisms.

But the Iraq situation is disintermediating France out of the picture. If one is the ruler of a nearly barbaric Arab country such as Algeria, for example, why does one need France now? Surely the Algerians must realize that the only way they are going to know they have control of the United States is to deal directly with - and obtain agreement and understanding from - the United States. France is irrelevant.

The only thing worse that having to accept the American agenda now would be to not accept it and have the United States take out Iraq over violent but impotent French objections. That, combined with losing all those Iraqi commercial relations, is quite a price for a middling has-been of a country like France to pay.

If indeed the French have had a "change of heart" maybe the EU will even agree to provide humanitarian assistance to the war victims.

Posted 12:18 PM by Robert

More Self Serving California Energy Claims

As a general matter, it is a good bet that state government officials know they are telling a whopper when they (1) make extravagant claims about wrongdoing by others which, if true, would tend to move blame from the officials onto those they blame and (2) predicate those claims on secret "sealed" information which has no claim to national security or other important confidentiality consideration. The likelihood of prevarication and truth bending is even stronger if those claims are very much like a lot of other such claims that the same state officials have made in the past but which weren't verified by the competent federal agency. California's claims of an increasingly vast conspiracy which allegedly drove up electricity prices have all those earmarks and more.

So one would have to be a very dim bulb indeed to take the most recent claims very seriously. To support its current allegations, California has had to argue that a vast array of energy player were in corrupt cahoots, including for-profit power companies which "teamed up" with utilities run by cities like Los Angeles, Glendale, Pasadena, Burbank and Redding to game the state's markets and split profits.

MORE: Good sense from Lynne Kiesling.

Posted 11:01 AM by Robert

180 Degrees Off

It is no secret that the Hollywood establishment - those who are in a position to employ others at all levels - tilts on the whole strongly to the left and opposes war with Iraq. Moreover, there is a less well-known but very real, justified, ongoing fear among conservatives in Hollywood that many on the left vindictively discriminate against them. It is therefore curious that the Screen Actors Guild's otherwise commendable defense of free speech rights seems almost exclusively concerned about the rights of those who oppose the Administration:

As our country again considers the possibility of war, it is the fundamental right of citizens to express their support or their fears and concerns. While passionate disagreement is to be expected in such a debate, a disturbing trend has arisen in the dialogue. Some have recently suggested that well-known individuals who express 'unacceptable' views should be punished by losing their right to work. This shocking development suggests that the lessons of history have, for some, fallen on deaf ears.

Over 50 years ago, this nation was faced with a monumental challenge: whether the world's greatest democracy was strong enough to truly allow its citizens the exercise of their rights of free speech and assembly during a time of international tension known as the "Cold War." Most of America failed that test, averting its eyes as the House Committee on Un-American Activities persecuted citizens, destroyed careers, ruined lives and gave rise to the notorious "blacklist".

During this shameful period, our own industry prostrated itself before smear campaigns and witch hunters rather than standing on the principles articulated in the nation's fundamental documents.

Today, having come to grips with its past, having repudiated the insult of loyalty oaths and examined its own failings, our industry, perhaps more than any other, understands the necessity of guarding and cherishing those rights for which Americans have fought and died.

In that spirit, the Screen Actors Guild Board of Directors, appreciating the value of full and open debate and devoted to the belief that the free flow of information, opinions and ideas contributes to the health of our nation, supports the right of all citizens, celebrated and unknown, to speak their minds freely, on any side of any issue, as is their Constitutional right. In the same vein - and with a painfully clear appreciation of history - we deplore the idea that those in the public eye should suffer professionally for having the courage to give voice to their views. Even a hint of the blacklist must never again be tolerated in this nation.

The Guild's statement is not expressly limited to concern for anti-war activists, although from its references to the McCarthy period, loyalty oaths and the like and its general tone, that seems to be its major - almost exclusive - concern. But given the strong leftward Hollywood tilt, those who agree with Bruce Willis are much more at risk of retaliation from within Hollywood than those who agree with Martin Sheen.

So why doesn't the Guild statement make clear that it supports the rights of those who support the government as well as those who support the official Hollywood Establishment anti-war position?

Posted 4:29 PM by Robert

This Is Spinal TAPPED

TAPPED continues its transformation into a silly self parody. First, a preposterous and irrelevant credentialist attack on the economists letter of support for the President's economics proposals, for which Don Luskin brought them down hard.

Now, TAPPED resorts to incoherent name calling to answer Luskin.

TAPPED clings to its belief that much about the President's proposals depends on what your meaning of "economist" is (or is that the meaning of "is"?). TAPPED thinks there is a "tradition" that "economist" means someone with a doctorate in economics, despite many counterexamples. The TAPPED approach - which, among other things, requires them to cobble up hilarious explanations as to why it's fine for non-economists to win the Nobel Prize in economics but not to sign a letter to the President as an economist - was silly and irrelevant from the beginning. Of course, simply being in uproarious and incoherent error doesn't save the TAPPED position from being offensively elitist.

But why does TAPPED continue to expose itself to continuing public humiliation at Luskin's hands? The TAPPED-out geniuses don't seem to know the meaning of "cutting losses" any better than they know the meaning of "economist" or that it doesn't help to crank up the rhetoric to 11.

As an official intellectual pygmy in good standing, I'll just continue my dance around the TAPPED arguments. Maybe that will make them seem more imposing.

Maguire has more.

Posted 2:00 PM by Robert

And A Third

Another factor to add to the Note's list of factors favoring Bush 43 over Bush 41: In 1992 the Democrats weren't caught between so many rocks and hard places as they are now and probably will be next year.

Another exhibit submitted in evidence: Hillary Clinton reportedly says she is backing President Bush's Iraq policies all the way. No serious person could believe that Senator Clinton takes this position out of personal conviction - we are seeing naked political necessity here. She is, after all, Senator from New York. It is also fair to assume that Senator Clinton has discussed this matter with her husband, and that her position has his blessing.

What does that all that say about the chances of the Democratic candidate for President in 2004 carrying New York State if the candidate does not support President Bush's Iraq policies today? It doesn't seem as though Senator Clinton thinks the chances would be high. How easy will it be for a Democrat to win without carrying New York State? How many of the droves of current Democrat contenders can lay claim to being such a supporter? For example, what does Hillary's action say about how useful it will be for Florida Democratic Senator Graham to be on the Democratic ticket?

On the other hand, the above-linked article also notes that Senator Clinton's position puts her squarely at odds with a majority in her own party, where one recent poll found an Iraq attack is opposed by 66 percent of "core Democrats." So how likely is it that a Democrat who supports President Bush's Iraq policies is going to be the Democratic nominee?

UPDATE: The Man Without Qualities has dismissed any chance that the current President would allow himself to be drawn into the kind of stupid controversey that bedeviled his father over Israeli settlers. But the very keeper of the Likudnik/White House cottage industry himself - Mickey Kaus - warns of a possible mess from within the White House on just this topic:

After an Iraq war, if Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz moves to try to force Israel to curtail its settlements in the occupied territories -- as he's suggested he'll do -- how long do you think it will take his fellow neocon Bush adviser Richard Perle to turn on him? Not very long, I'd guess. ...

FURTHER UPDATE: Further evidence of how the Democrats' handling of the Estrada matter is threatening to turn their embarrassment into a potential disaster with the Hispanic vote. The liberal, Democrat-leaning Miami Herald says the Democrats should cut it out.

Link from Viking Pundit.

Posted 9:48 AM by Robert

Would You Care For Some Refreshments?

A survey of cities, commissioned by Mercer Human Resource Consulting says Zurich, Vancouver, Vienna, Geneva and Sydney have the "top quality of life" - and in that order. Auckland, Copenhagen, Frankfurt, Munich and Berne all tied for fifth spot.

The study is said to be based on 39 criteria ranging from political, social and economic factors that also included the quality of health, education and transport services. But, frankly, the whole list is distinctly lacking in dynamism. For example: Vienna? The average age of a pedestrian in Vienna looks (unscientifically) to be about 60 years. And there's a reason for that: Vienna offers essentially no opportunities for advancement, growth, expansion or dynamism. The city is all too close to being a beautiful, comfortable Memorial Park. And I love Vienna - at least when I can get some of the historical associations out of my mind for a while, which, frankly, isn't easy.

In fact, the whole list seems to be of places where people of a certain level of education, culture and money would like to retire.

The world's best God's Waiting Rooms.

Posted 9:08 AM by Robert

A Striking Admission

The New York Times admits today:

The Bush administration proved over the weekend that it can plan for war against Iraq and fight international terrorism at the same time.

Of course, the Times has been denying this very fact for many months. One might hope that having just admitted being so spectacularly in error for so long, the Times would show a little modesty, perhaps a hint that they might not really have what it takes to second guess the Administration on this topic. But, no. The editorial goes right on to reprise another of the Times' Looney Tunes:

President Bush may be able to win a military victory against Saddam Hussein without broad international support, but he won't be able to rebuild Iraq, much less change the political and economic dynamics of the Islamic world, without a great deal of foreign assistance.

Perhaps the Times might want to keep in mind that the very persistence of Saddam Hussein as ruler of Iraq demonstrates that once one controls a country with the world's second largest proven oil reserves, the "international community" is very flexible and forgiving in providing "broad international support." A new government of Iraq - almost any new government of Iraq - will have more legitimacy than Mr. Hussein. And that new government will - surprise - be thanking the United States for putting it in power and forgiving the United States for any acts which the "international community" views as a transgression. How is the "international community" supposed to resist all that - and the political, factual and economic realities behind it? Is the EU going to boycott Iraqi oil?

And it is hard to think of anything that will "change the political and economic dynamics of the Islamic world" more effectively than the utter and complete destruction of the power of a person who so personifies the current political and economic dynamics of the Islamic world even where he received "a great deal of foreign assistance."

Having begun its editorial so well, the Times' apparently complete absence of personal insight sadly brings it to a ringing affirmation of its own dimwittedness:

We believe more time is warranted to determine whether Iraq's dismantlement of missiles is a signal that Mr. Hussein is reconsidering his stubborn defiance of the United Nations and to see if a solution short of war is still possible.

Just what will it take to make the Times wake up and grow up and smarten up?

Posted 8:28 AM by Robert

Brussels' Biggest Concern

According to the Financial Times, the European Commission is insisting it will not operate under US military control once it starts allocating humanitarian aid to Iraq after any US-led war...[ and] it has also been suggested governments could be reluctant to rush into repairing what the US destroyed in any bombing raid.

"We have to help people. It is our mandate to provide relief according to needs," said an official. "Nevertheless, our biggest concern is that the US is going to make it difficult for anyone to distribute without subscribing to US conditions."

Yes, indeed, one must keep one's eye on one's "biggest concern" - which is by the EU's own confession not helping people hurt by the war. Their "biggest concern" is the little French inspired Euro-American pas de deux over who has to "subscribe" to whose "conditions" - even when it comes to a refusal to distribute humanitarian aid.

In other words, after huffing and puffing about the "human costs" and "civilian casualties" of the coming war, the EU is now saying that considerations of political primacy and who gets to structure the aid are more important than what the EU really treats as subordinated humanitarian hooey.

This is an issue that comes up all the time for international aid agencies. For example, governments often instruct aid workers that they may be active only in certain areas - often on political grounds. I have never met a legitimate international aid worker who would subscribe to using a threat of withholding all aid (in other words, hold the victims hostage) to effect a political or organizational agenda. Can one imagine, say, the International Red Cross or the World Health Organization publicly threatening a government with a threat to not treat its people from a plague in province "A" unless the government also allows the Red Cross or WHO into province "B?" Of course not. The correct and previously nearly universal approach is for humanitarian agencies to help the people they can help and then later criticize the government for any harm the agency thinks was done by the way the aid was directed. Of course, some international agencies sometimes don't even do the later criticism where political considerations come into play.

At least the EU's new decision to withhold humanitarian aid in Iraq if it doesn't get to set the priorities - a unilateral decision by the EU to change the way international humanitarian aid is delivered - is a flash of honesty on the part of the EU. Squalor. But honesty.

As for the US: USaid, Washington's official aid agency, would be going in immediately after, if not in the rear, of US military strikes against Iraq.

Posted 8:30 PM by Robert

Swedes Toss Out Recycling ....

... can their obsession with the quasi-religious Kyoto Treaty be far behind? Will we witness the spectacle of Lomborg's Entry Into Stockholm in 2004?

Or will it take the Swedes decades to figure that one out, too?

Link from Instapundit.

Posted 8:04 PM by Robert

Some Basic Questions

The Bush tax and budget proposals are stirring up old questions about the past Reagan/Bush era deficits - especially in regard to whether the deficits that the new Bush proposals might produce are "responsible." Silly, partisan ranters such as Paul Krugman and Brad DeLong, have had their say. But it is not really that easy (at least for me) to get a feeling for what the general educated public really thinks about those old Reagan/Bush deficits, especially whether the deficits were worth it. Those deficits were certainly assailed as "irresponsible" in their day. Do most educated people think that is true? And what do people remember?

For example:

Do most people think that the Reagan/Bush deficits were "caused" by increased defense spending (or by such spending combined with the Reagan tax cut) that was instrumental in bringing the Cold War to an end?

Do they think the Reagan tax cuts were a major cause of the prosperity of the 1980's?

Do they think that ending the Cold War was a major "cause" of the prosperity of the 1990's - at least to the extent that prosperity was real and not a bubble?

Do they therefore think that the Reagan/Bush deficits "caused" much of the real prosperity of the 1990's through this mechanism?

Or do they think that the Reagan/Bush deficits were bad, and the resulting government debt overhang was just one more thing for the economy to overcome?

If so, what do think about the national dialogue going so fast from fear of the effects of deficits to fear of the effects of repaying the federal debt?

Do they think that a large part of the Reagan/Bush deficits were "caused" by expenditures needed to cure the Savings & Loan crisis?

Do they think that a large part of the reduction of the deficit under President Clinton was "caused" by the end of the Savings & Loan crisis, which actually started to flush cash back into the federal government?

Do they think that a large part of the prosperity of the 1990's was "caused" by curing the Savings & Loan crisis - thereby avoiding the "walking death" that has plagued Japan for more than 10 years?

Do they therefore think that the Reagan/Bush deficits "caused" much of the real prosperity of the 1990's through this mechanism?

Or do they think that Clinton administration policies or the policies of the post-1994 Congress "caused" the real prosperity of the 1990's?

For example, do they think freeing up international trade or the Clinton tax rise of 1993 gave the economy a big boost?

Do they think anything government did mattered that much?

Posted 9:22 AM by Robert

Music From A Farther Back Room

Despite apparent international setbacks, the Financial Times reports:

The Bush administration is increasingly confident it can secure a second victory for US diplomacy at the United Nations Security Council as it exerts pressure on Russia and China to vote in favour of a resolution authorising war in Iraq. Even as Russia on Friday said it would be willing to use its veto to block the resolution, White House officials privately signalled gradual progress with Moscow. US officials say the discussions are precarious, with the majority of the 15-nation Security Council against them in public. However, after private conversations with foreign ministers and heads of state, US officials say they can see seven or eight countries in support of a second resolution.

And despite the Turks saying there are no plans for another Parliament vote, it seems to me that, since the difference is made by 19 abstentions, something can probably be done. Indeed, a second United Nations Security Council resolution authorising war in Iraq would itself likely break the Turkish impass.

Of course, if the United Nations and Turkey won't do the right thing, the United States, Australia and Britain will move anyway - and the door will open for a new United Nations, a new EU, a new NATO, a new Kurdish state, an isolated and unsuccessful France, a new French (and European) awareness that no policy of spinning obstructionist treaties around the United Staes will work, possibly a new opening for American relations with Greece and, of course, a new Iraq and a new day for Israel.

That's quite a set of silver linings.

UPDATE: Matt Drudge is reporting: Senior Turkish official indicates his government would ask Parliament a second time to allow U.S. troops to use the country as a base against Iraq... Developing Hard...

If they vote again with five of the abstainers agreeing to stay home, that should do it for Turkey.

FURTHER UPDATE: Now the New York Times is reporting the same development: another likely Turkish Parliament vote.

FURTHER UPDATE: The Sun is also suggesting that the Security Council will vote the US way: The countdown to war became unstoppable when America spotted the first signs of support from Russia and China — both permanent members of the UN Security Council. Despite publicly warning against war, they are keen not to risk a valuable relationship with the US.