::

 
Roger that!

In army slang, "Roger that!" means a strong affirmative. Often used in a context where someone might be inclined to say "damned right!" (or "yeah, I'll do it" when said in a resigned tone).

I just read Roger Simon's take on Easterbrook's apology, and I have to say "Roger that!"

I accept it. But I must say I find it rather unimpressive. Easterbrook now says:

"Looking back I did a terrible job through poor wording."

Hmmm... While apparently a devout theist, Easterbrook is no doubt aware what that apostate Jew Sigmund Freud would say about that. As a professional writer for several decades, I have often seen strange slips appear on my typed pages or computer screens that were actually deep indications of my own inner conflicts and feelings. I think most writers have.

I am not asking Easterbrook to put on a dunce cap and perform some sort of Cultural Revolution-style self-criticism... and I have already said I accept his apology... but I would think some kind of honest self-examination is in order. Words of the nature and length he wrote do not just "come out."

Adam Sullivan, 15:13 | 0 comments

::

 
How it unfolded

The BS that the Weasels were bent on building consensus for the betterment of Iraq in yesterday's UN vote is cut to pieces by this reporting:

Russia, China, France, Germany, Syria and Pakistan had all hinted they might abstain because the text did not give a specific timeline to end the occupation.

France, Germany and Russia vowed to abstain as a bloc if their package of amendments was adopted in its entirety.

...

Powell said it took the government just 48 hours to clinch a unanimous vote, with the most intensive lobbying taking place in the final 24 hours before the vote.

The first signal came from China, which usually sides with Russia and was looking for a way out, US officials said.

Russia then began to probe for a possible compromise. Its UN ambassador, Sergei Lavrov, offered a shorter and less controversial list of amendments, which was accepted by US Ambassador John Negroponte in a private meeting on Wednesday.

"It was clear they wanted an outcome they could support," a US official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. "Our sense was the Russians wanted an agreement."

French and German envoys said they were aware of the Lavrov meeting in advance but had not come to a decision themselves.

By Wednesday evening, State Department officials were sure Russian President Vladimir Putin was on board and believed that German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder was leaning in favour but would not vote "yes" unless France did so too.

...

The vote, originally called for Wednesday, was delayed until Thursday after Russia said it had to wait until Putin, Schroeder and French President Jacques Chirac consulted in a telephone conference early on Thursday morning.

Diplomats speculated that Putin and then Schroeder put pressure on Chirac to agree to a "yes" vote at those talks.

The final hold-out was Syria, which recently has had little reason to support the United States.

The Bush administration is pressuring Syria to crack down on militant groups it says are using Syrian territory to launch suicide bombings in Israel. And the US Congress is working on legislation that would cut off trade with Damascus.

But US officials said Damascus had apparently done its calculations and concluded it was better to be on the winning side. Other diplomats said France persuaded it to come along.

"We got word during the night that they were reflecting on their position," Powell said. "This morning we were advised that they would be joining the other 14 members."

Without an audience to applaud their defiance, the Weasels caved. One by one. Simple as that. Not much of a "bloc" anymore.

Adam Sullivan, 00:48 | 0 comments

::

 
McCain says it all

Regarding the Senate's sad vote for converting aid into loans for Iraq -

"The battle for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people is not over by a long shot," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. He said the amendment "will send a clear signal that the United States is really, really there for the oil."

A sad day indeed for the US Senate - a body who grants members a 6 year term so that they will be more inclined to "do the right thing" in matters of foreign policy. How long is the list of patients at Walter Reed Hospital seeking spine donors?

Adam Sullivan, 00:40 | 0 comments

::

 
NYT helps with the hairspray

So as to help de Villepin coif yesterday's UNSC vote on Iraq, the NYT is reporting that the vote was really a paternalistic pat on the back for the Coalition:

The view prevailing here appeared to be that Thursday's decision was simply one step in a continuing process of negotiation. "Of course, the United States remained in its old logic, though we had some improvement," one official involved in the deliberations said. "So we had a choice: one, to say thanks, but it's not enough; or two, you're trying, it's a step, there will be further steps."

Then we have this:

German and French officials emphasized that they would send delegates to a donors' conference for Iraq that will be held in Madrid next week. But Mr. Schröder said the three leaders had agreed they were "not in a position to engage ourselves militarily or beyond that, with material support.

Then why go?

So the anti-war crowd will now feed us this crap. To them, the US is in some 10 step program for rehabilitation and they don't want to discourage even marginal progress. Not that the Iraqi's see it that way, but screw them - who are they to deliberate on the future of Iraq? (btw: I have yet to see a western news outlet pick up that story. One wonders why.)
Adam Sullivan, 00:38 | 0 comments

::

 
Sorry Mr. Bowie, God isn't and American

David Bowie sings "God is an American" in his song "I'm afraid of Americans" (lyrics).

The Pope tells us today that God wants him to stay on the job:

"He (God), while knowing my human fragility, encourages me to respond with faith ... and he invites me to assume the responsibilities that he himself has entrusted to me"

Evidently US Catholics aren't seeing it God's way, at least according to polling from USA Today:

Pope loses approval; 50% say he should step down

Just as John Paul II celebrates the 25th anniversary of his election as pope, half of U.S. Catholics say that the pontiff should resign because of poor health and that he is "not in touch with the modern world."

Were God an American, I figure he would have used his divine powers to skew that poll, don't you? Nor is he probably a Californian since he didn't deliver for McClintock's campaign for Governor.

While I don't know what nationality God is, I sure as hell hope he isn't French.

Adam Sullivan, 15:40 | 0 comments

::

 
de Villepin puts the best hair style on it

His statement:

« Ces trois pays sont guidés par la volonté de reconstituer l’unité de la communauté internationale … En ce moment, il est important d’envoyer le message que nous voulons tous garantir les meilleures conditions à la reconstruction.»

Translation:

"These three countries are guided by the will to rebuild unity of the international community … At this time, it is important to send the message that we all want to guarantee the best conditions for rebuilding."

Translated further:

"Look. We were about to get our asses handed to us. So we went along. Now we can take credit later if things go well and insist on some rebuilding contracts. If things don't go well, we'll be in a great position to stab the Coalition in the back again. Please pass the hairspray."

Adam Sullivan, 13:07 | 0 comments

::

 
Negroponte earns his pay

The UNSC vote on the US resolution for a Good House Keeping Seal of Approval for the occupation of Iraq was unanimous.

I wasn't too hot on the idea in the first place.

The State Department deserves congratulations on pulling this one off. Unanimity without handing over the keys was a highly unlikely outcome.

What has me snickering today is that the Axis of Weasels have completely caved - they supported the resolution so as not to be painted as the amoral obstructionists that they are.

For once the Weasels were outmaneuvered in the only place on the planet where they are considered to have power. The other members of the council were lobbied hard by the US and the UK. When they came on board (and even co-sponsored, as was the case with Cameroon), then you had a situation where the Weasels would not only lose badly, but be seen as bitter, petty, and screwing Iraqi's in order to score points for anti-Americanism. Once Pakistan came on board, the only abstention to join the Weasels would have been Syria's. When Syria told the US 45 minutes before the vote that they'd vote yes too, the Weasels couldn't turn back on their con-call decision to support, or they'd have been up shit creek without even a Ba'athist paddle.

They could not sell themselves as a moral nexus looking after the popular interests of Iraqi's anymore. Done.

However it isn't as if France has taken this as a "great opportunity to shut up". Here is the French Ambassador to the UN, Jean-Marc de la Sabliere:

"This draft certainly does not go as far as we would have liked. We would have preferred in particular that a clear text set more restrictive and closer deadlines for the transfer of responsibilities... Unity in the Security Council is a priority. "

Let me translate the "Unity in the Security Council is a priority" part - "We don't have the balls to go it alone on principle. Furthermore, we lack any principles in the first place, making 'going it alone' a foolish venture."

For the moment, this is good news and an unexpected outcome. We'll see what troops and funds are forthcoming from countries for whom this resolution was supposed to provide "cover". I wager little until an Iraqi recovery is in full swing, then a deluge so as to get in on the act. Suffice it to say that I am skeptical.

Adam Sullivan, 12:16 | 0 comments

::

 
A candid assessment

Mitch at blogfonte has a candid assessment of Democratic candidate John Edwards (even more concise is the title of the post):

I supported Edwards in the past because I liked his take on domestic issues, he was pro-war, and he wasn't burdened with Lieberman's distasteful social conservativism.

He is voting against the $87 billion reconstruction bill. He voted in favor of the UN authorization back in the day. He's willing to play the hawk when it's safe to do so, but is too much of a coward to pay the cost when it's required.

Yep.
Adam Sullivan, 11:55 | 0 comments

::

 
Totten sums up Hitchens

Michael Totten sums up Hitchens quite well today:

Of course, the thing about Hitchens is that he didn't really turn to the right. He has been aggressively anti-fascist for a long, long time. He didn't change much. His (and our) former comrades did. They broke their solidarity with Iraqi Kurdistan and dumped the old left slogan that says Fascism Means War.

Michael is right - the "left" changed - Hitchens didn't.
Adam Sullivan, 11:44 | 0 comments

::

 
Iraqi Governing Council rips into France, Germany and Russia

In Arab News (of all places) I found this:

Iraqi Council Blasts Russia, France
Agencies

PUTRAJAYA/BAGHDAD, 16 October 2003 — Iraq’s Governing Council hit out yesterday at objections from countries, including France and Russia, to the US proposed draft resolution on the future of the country, accusing them of ignoring the wishes of Iraqis.

“The problem with the French and Russian proposal, they have not been talking to the Iraqis to discuss what kind of counter proposal they are submitting to the Security Council,” said the current head of the Iraqi council, Ayad Alawi, on the sidelines of an Islamic summit here.

He said this contrasted with the attitude of Spain, the United States, Poland and Britain, “who have been engaged in dialogue with the Iraqis, with the Governing Council on the proposed resolutions in the Security Council.”

“We don’t know what the Russian resolution is, what kind of proposal they are presenting. And we, the Iraqis, would reject any proposal which is to be imposed on us.”

No wonder why Russia asked for a postponement on the latest UNSC Iraq resolution until tomorrow - they are now quite motivated to vote "for" something rather than "against" a constructive effort with the rest of the non-Ba'athist/non-Islamo-Fascist council members on board. So Schroder, Chirac, and Pooty-poo will have a con call - clearly they expected to abstain and now see the danger in doing that - thus the last minute "huddle."

All the while, they have yet to bother consulting with the people they claim they are trying desperately to assist. Assholes.


Adam Sullivan, 22:44 | 0 comments

::

 
Bolivia

The country who got her name from Simon Bolivar ("The George Washington of South America") is seeing street fighting and political protest that is bordering on revolution.

Randy Paul at Beautiful Horizons has the details, links, and the background.

BTW: The border dispute with Chile is not the only one in the region - if you get to Venezuela sometime, look at the license plates on the cars. There is an outline of the country on the plate, with a small shaded area where a border is shared with Guyana - the disputed territory.
Adam Sullivan, 21:52 | 0 comments

::

 
Nothing much to say.

I don't think I can say much about Easterbrook's racist garbage that he posted at TNR.

Though I'd like to say that I am stunned, I am not.

Somehow the holocaust has been turned into an event in history that careless minds find as instructive for Jews when discussing Jewish morality. As if all Jews subscribe to the same morality. As if they all thought and acted with a uniformity that non-Jews lack (the only time they have acted with uniformity in "recent European history" was in their boarding of trains). When one considers this, one realizes that such thinking can be distilled to ' they deserved it' - for one has already lumped all Jews into a moral sphere which allows one to reconstruct the holocaust as irony - intending to reveal a horrific moral flaw in all Jews.

What utter bull shit. A fraud that presents itself as insight to narrow, hate-opportune minds - a moral sphere that can be cogently constructed and uniformly condemned.


Adam Sullivan, 17:55 | 0 comments

::

 
The UN Resolution

The French press are covering the US efforts for a new UNSC resolution on Iraq far more than the US press.

Reason? The French have more to lose, it would appear.

Why? Read this:

L'hypothèque du veto ayant été levée par la France, le texte devrait réunir le minimum des neuf voix (sur 15) nécessaires à son adoption.

Les pressions que, selon la presse américaine, les Etats-Unis ont exercées au cours du week-end dernier, directement au plus haut niveau dans les capitales concernées, ont fait basculer des pays comme le Mexique ou le Chili, qui avaient d'abord émis des réserves sur le projet.

La seule question est celle du nombre des abstentions, les pays susceptibles de s'abstenir étant, selon les pointages des diplomates, l'Allemagne, la Chine, la France, la Russie et peut-être le Pakistan.

Rough (and earnest) translation:

With the hypothetical veto of France having been raised, the text [of the resolution] should bring together the 9 votes (of 150) needed for passage.

The pressures that, according to the American press, the United States exerted during last weekend, directly on the undecided capitals concerned, made solid support of countries like Mexico or Chile, which had initially issued reservations on the proposal.

The only question remaining is that of the number of the abstentions, the countries likely to abstain being, according to indications of their diplomats, Germany, China, France, Russia and perhaps Pakistan.

Satisfyingly, the word "pression" means both "pressure" and "draft beer" in common usage. Sounds like the US developed a spine in the UN and is kicking ass and taking names. I'll drink to that.

I also doubt France has the spine to veto, and maybe not even abstain. Chirac just can't stand to be on the losing side.

Adam Sullivan, 13:28 | 0 comments

::

 
Same Methods?

I find it sadly interesting that the roadside car bomb that killed 3 Americans in Gaza today represents the same prefered method used by Ba'athists in Iraq for killing Americans there.

We'll see the degree of simillarity as the story unfolds (Remotely detonated? Improvised?). For those who see the region's violence as "grass roots" and "popular" ignore the mounting evidence that the multiple terrorist groups share methods and objectives. Support (or mere tolerance - like branding such groups as representing "popular uprisings") of one is support for all.

Adam Sullivan, 10:43 | 0 comments

::

 
Three Countries + Six Amendments = One Screwing

Liberation reports on resistance to the US efforts for a new UNSC resolution:

La France, l'Allemagne et la Russie ont fait savoir que cette évolution ne répondait pas suffisamment à leurs attentes. Ces trois pays ont proposé six amendements au projet de résolution américain par lesquels ils proposent que le CIG, avec l'Onu et l'administration américaine de l'Irak, mette au point un calendrier plus détaillé pour le transfert de souveraineté aux Irakiens.

My rough translation:

Its dead. France, Germany and Russia have screwed the US again.

Adam Sullivan, 18:26 | 0 comments

::

 
Recovery Update

It has been a while since I wrote on the recovery, and many more readers are now on board. As background, I own a couple of businesses (small tech startups which I have funded). As the recovery strengthens I get pulled into working more (I am at "the office" right now). I get to Europe and South America with some regularity, and meet customers and managers there. Take my perspective on economics as you will.

We do have a recovery. We saw a bottom in the financial services sector a good 4 to 6 months ago. Now we are seeing a recovery in media profits, with Yahoo reporting strong earnings and now newspapers reporting ad growth.

What is important about this recovery is its timing. We had a huge speculative bubble in my industry (software) which started to deflate in 2000 and then burst outright on 9/11.

Software is what I call a symbolic capital product. As sold (in license form) it represents no tangibility whatsoever. Yet it is a capital item which the US exports heavily. We in the software industry will see our recovery after a broader capital goods recovery is well under way. I forecast a year.

It probably isn't important to most of you how the software sector fares, but understand that we are seeing modest growth in sales and a whole lot of 'tire kicking.' Again, software is a capital item - companies buy it as an investment in productivity, but usually a speculative one at that. We will be the last to recover.

The firming of the financial services sector and now ad revenues indicates that business managers are looking to expand market share (or feel compelled to defend). That means robust hiring is just around the corner - most managers will run things very lean (eg. work America to death) until convinced of a robust recovery. Then they will hire like hell so as not to be left out. Productivity then becomes an issue, and capital spending kicks in for the late-adopters.

By historical standards, unemployment is relatively low for a sluggish economy. We have many discouraged and underemployed not showing up on the radar. The trend, I expect, will be to see job growth start pre-holiday and then keep growing. Seasonal jobs will get converted to full time ones. labor markets will tighten quickly. By May '04, interest rates will be climbing and a recovery should be hitting a robust stride. The elements are there.

The timing helps the war. It will help pay for it. It will distract Americans from it, frankly. Energy demand will rise commensurate with Iraqi production capacity - the Iraqis will make a killing. Good for them. That will do more to dis-hearten Al Qaeda and the Ba'athists as much as anything we can muster. And it will require the Democratic nominee for president to actually sell something - an idea, a vision, something. Economies are cyclic and this one is in recovery. Al Qaeda can't stop it because we have metabolized their threats. OBL on new video is page 3 stuff. And they are using up their zealot supply in their own backyard.

As for Europe, I have always seen a 6 to 9 month lag effect on ups and downs between the US and Europe. Europe just sucks right now. Nothing happening. If we take the war off of the international plate, both Chirac and Schroeder will have a very difficult time facing their countrymen - they have little good news and fewer options to offer. Couldn't happen to a nicer pair.

Adam Sullivan, 15:06 | 0 comments

::

 
Mellow out

Hystericists who claim that the current SCOTUS is packed with fascists intent on "un-doing" the constitution ought to look at this:

The Supreme Court cleared the way Tuesday for state laws allowing ill patients to smoke marijuana if a doctor recommends it.

Justices turned down the Bush administration's request to consider whether the federal government can punish doctors for recommending or perhaps just talking about the benefits of the drug to sick patients. An appeals court said the government cannot.

Place that on top of their strike-down of sodomy laws this summer and you get a libertarian court. Not 9 libertarians, but libertarian in effect anyway.

Adam Sullivan, 14:17 | 0 comments

::

 
How wrong I was

Yesterday I wrote this upon hearing of the US offer to place a sovereignty deadline of sorts in its latest attempt to get the good housekeeping seal of approval on the occupation of Iraq:

My wager is that France will say that this is not enough within the next 48 hours. Certainly the State Dept. would have had some assurance from the French that this one would fly, but they have mis-read all prior "assurances" from de Villepin.

Well, I was wrong. It took about 18 hours:

Ces amendements, selon une source diplomatique, portent sur trois points principaux.

Le premier est que la possibilité de mettre en place un gouvernement transitoire soit clairement ouverte.

Le deuxième est la présentation au Conseil de sécurité d'un calendrier de transfert des responsabilités gouvernementales aux Irakiens.

Le troisième, enfin, est que le secrétaire général des Nations Unies, Kofi Annan, soit pleinement associé à l'élaboration du calendrier et à la préparation du processus constitutionnel.

"Si l'ensemble de ces conditions, qui constituent un tout, sont acceptées, alors nous avons l'espoir de pouvoir faire l'unité du Conseil", a déclaré à ses collègues l'ambassadeur de France Jean-Marc de La Sablière, dont les propos ont été rapportés par un diplomate.

My rough translation:

These amendments, according to one diplomatic source, concern three principal points.

The first is to put in place a transitional government which is transparent.

The second is to present the UNSC with a calendar for transfer of power to the Iraqis.

The third, finally, is to have UN secretary general Kofi Annan put together a calendar for the creation of a constitution.

"If all of these conditions, which constitute a whole [ed - implication that they are indivisible and non-negotiable], are accepted, then we have the hope to be able to unite the Council [on the issue]", declared French ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sablière to colleagues, whose remarks were reported by a diplomat.

Why are we going to the UN again? What is the point? To get help from those unwilling to give it? To dis-hearten terrorist because we have a larger coalition? Isn't the Baathist tactic to simply attack anyone who shows any wavering so as to dis-hearten them? Spain? Turkey? The UN? Hasn't that tactic worked to a degree? How 'resolute' will any support from France, Germany, Russia or China be? What would they do if their embassies got car bombed upon joining the coalition? How long would they stay? What would their wavering do to embolden the Baathists and prolong the effort?

Can any of them be expected to give any resources in excess of those they'd expect to extract as compensation for their humanitarianism? Where will they be if such a venture starts showing no signs of tangible returns (excepting the rehabilitation and democratization of a nation and region, of course).

Sorry, but the mail box has plenty of mail asking me why I am giving Bush poor marks on the war - stated simply, he has created the opportunity for doubt and wavering through thoughtless decisions like this one. The result is that the terrorists are emboldened (having seen this a weakening of our will and our imminent Saigon-esque evacuation of Baghdad). It has also emboldened the hapless fools formerly regarded as our allies, who are only too happy to snipe at us so as not to confront their domestic problems.

War ultimately comes down to imposition of will. War leaders must demonstrate their willfulness. In their actions. In their words. Resolutely. To do otherwise is to squander lives. Yours and you enemy's.

Bush could redeem himself today by announcing that the US is abandoning any prospect of getting UN assistance since none there are interested in placing Iraqi interests first. Such an announcement should show a degree of disbelief and anger as well as condemnation of the immorality of his opponents (that will plant the appropriate seed of doubt in public opinion among our western detractors, which should be exploited ruthlessly as the Iraqi economy expands and the Baathists succumb to our intransigent will and firepower). He can then cancel the "donors conference" in Spain, telling those who are truly interested in helping Baghdad to bring their checkbooks there (they might want to bring some boots and rifles too, if they are really committed to helping out). Finally, he can clean up the civil war within his cabinet by clamping down on Rumsfeld, Powell, and Tenet while sending his Vice President on a long "goodwill" mission to some obscure part of the planet where it is difficult to establish a secure phone call to Rumsfeld's office.

GWB needs to be the biggest pain in the ass to occupy the Oval Office in modern memory. An ass to our "allies." An ass to his lieutenants. He needs to exploit and ride any such perceptions. Then the enemy can only face him and no one else. At that point, Bush will control all of the variables.

The willful win wars.

Adam Sullivan, 13:30 | 0 comments

::

 
Jacques de Gaulle

Worth reading is Jacques de Gaulle by Jonathan Fenby-

There is a new bull in the European china shop. Gone are the days when Thatcherite handbag-wielding and Majorist opt-out equivocation drove the Continentals crazy. This autumn the most strident sound in the European Union is coming from Paris, as President Jacques Chirac demonstrates how to play the nationalist game while claiming to occupy the community’s high moral ground.

A budget that busts the eurozone rules, anti-competitive subsidies, agricultural protectionism, threats to cut subsidies to other members — France is on a roll. If this antagonises the Commission and deeply irritates smaller countries that play by the eurozone rules, so be it. At 70, Chirac is set on carving out his place in history as worthy heir to Charles de Gaulle. After the coalition of the unwilling over Iraq, it is now time to whip Europe into line and to ensure that France stays in the driving seat when the constitution elaborated by his long-time rival Valéry Giscard d’Estaing comes into force.

So this week we have seen the finance minister Francis Mer telling his EU colleagues that France’s budget deficit will break the 3 per cent limit set by the eurozone in 2004 as well as this year — and that there is nothing he can do about it. As if that were not enough, France is also set to bust the ceiling established for the state debts. Back in Paris the government pointed to new figures showing that France would teeter into recession by the end of this year as an argument for being allowed to break the rules. The Commission has the power to fine France for its transgression, but that seems unlikely; the explosion this would provoke from the Elysée Palace is probably enough to deter Brussels from more than tut-tutting.

Adam Sullivan, 01:21 | 0 comments

::

 
BTW ...

I have said before that I may be a single issue voter in the next election. The war is that important to me.

That should not be reduced to a vote for Bush.

He is doing a poor job of executing this war. The Condi Rice move last week was a small step in the right direction.

More is needed.

Until then, there is only one Democrat running right now who supports the broader war goals without quibbling. His name is Joe Lieberman.

I have friends (yes - friends) who consider themselves well placed in the democratic party. The Clark strategy, they tell me, is DLC scripted. Left for the base, then right for the election. By the time the general election rolls around, it is thought, either Iraq will be an outright debacle and Clark will be in a position to exploit it, or Iraq will be a success, where Clark can simply position himself as cautious and concerned for his troops.

Like I have said before - the primary process in this country produces very skilled liars.

Nonetheless, my short list of pro-war candidates stands at Lieberman and Bush.



Adam Sullivan, 00:16 | 0 comments

::

 
Debts

There are those in the US Congress wanting to turn some of the US reconstruction dollars being sent to Iraq into loans.

Frankly, the US would be wisest to leave Iraq with only one debt - a moral one.

An independent, democratic Iraq burdened by debt imposed upon her by her liberators will not flourish. The situation will be exploited by the conspiracists who dominate popular discourse in the Arab world.

Free Iraq must be a debt free Iraq if she is to prosper as a beacon of hope in the region.

As for the moral debt, the coalition should signal that the best way to repay that is to catalyze transformation of the region towards a more liberal Arab world. That was our reason for doing this the way we did it in the first place.

Adam Sullivan, 23:14 | 0 comments

::

 
Why bother?

Events seem to be proving me correct on the futility of going back to the UN, I am sad to say.

I am compelled to ask again "Why is the US bothering to screw around for a new good housekeeping stamp of approval on the Iraqi occupation?"

Here is the latest:

Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Yakovenko confirmed Monday Russia's opposition to the latest US-proposed draft resolution on Iraq to the United Nations Security Council, Interfax reported.

It is unlikely to reach a consensus until amendments suggested by other countries, including Russia, are introduced to this document, said the spokesman.

"If Russia's proposals have not been taken into account, it's difficult to count on broad agreement in the UN Security Council,"Yakovenko stressed, according to Itar-Tass.

The United States has circulated the third revised draft resolution on Iraq, requiring the US-installed Iraqi Governing Council to provide no later than Dec. 15 a timetable and a programfor the drafting of a new constitution for Iraq and for the holding of democratic elections under that constitution.

The latest amendment was submitted after the second revised version drew harsh criticism from United Nations Secretary-GeneralKofi Annan and some other Security Council members that want Iraqis to get sovereignty first and only later write a constitution and then hold elections. But the United States favorsa reverse order that would set out a later transfer of power to Iraqis.

What was Bush calling Putin many months back when he said they had formed a "strong friendship?" Was it "pooty poo?" Well, the poo sure is flying in Foggy Bottom, ain't it George? How GWB thought he had a personal relationship with putin is beyond me. Putin has the charisma and warmth of Lenin's corpse.

Why take a case to an unfriendly court when you don't have to? We have had nothing to gain but vain hope of help from other countries. I suppose a new and un-needed resolution on Iraq gives political cover for nations to provide aid. With world media dead set against any measure short of Iraqis being thrown to a regional wolf pack of tyrants with no means to defend itself, there is no basis of hope for "political cover." None.

Why waste the effort? Why give morons like Chirac the basis for self-congratulation?

All political action is now being framed relative to Iraq. You don't agree? Well look at what California's Assembly Speaker Herb Wesson had to say about what voter's intended with their recall:

"I don't believe this was aimed solely at the Democratic Party, or even at a single individual," said Assembly Speaker Herb Wesson, one of the state's most powerful Democrats. "People are out of work, prices are going up, they're sick of high gas (costs), the war in Iraq.

California Recall = voter anger about the war in Iraq. Simple enough?

Remember - all political action framed in terms of Iraq. C'est tout.

Those opposed to the occupation and rehabilitation of Iraq cannot be convinced to support the endeavor. Ever. Why try and give them the opportunity to antagonize the efforts of the good?

Update: So the US is now trying to "give a nod" to France with the December 15th language. My wager is that France will say that this is not enough within the next 48 hours. Certainly the State Dept. would have had some assurance from the French that this one would fly, but they have mis-read all prior "assurances" from de Villepin.

Adam Sullivan, 16:01 | 0 comments

::

 
For those who missed ...

... the last year of Jimmy Carter's presidency, you can now get a feel of the public mood that lead to the unthinkable - the election of an actor to the presidency. (Remember readers - I was one of the dismayed back when Ray-gun got elected).

"Where" you ask? Try France. (hat tip: Andrew Apostolou)
Adam Sullivan, 14:25 | 0 comments

::

 
The experts on California are out in force

As a 5th generation Californian, I am simply stunned at the number of experts on California's politics and government that reside outside the golden state's borders. Perhaps this represents an intellectual groundswell - Is it too much to hope that universities around the globe will soon start "Californian Studies" departments? Such is needed, since all this expertise seems to lack any capacity for research.

Google news seems to be extracting quite a few of these this morning, and they all say that the only thing that California can do to get out of its budget deficits is to raise taxes.

First we have this one (from London, England) in its call for repealing Proposition 13-

The problem is easy to spot. It's the economy, stupid. In three years, California's official unemployment has risen from 5% to 6.9%, tracking the rise across America.

The real problem is much worse. Analysts estimate as much as 12.7% of the US workforce is either unemployed or significantly 'underemployed' - looking for a full-time job while working two days a week in Starbucks.

California is a microcosm of the wider problem. The state has the fifth-largest economy in the world. Last century its booming hi-tech industries drew millions of people from across America and the world. The immigrants still come, but now the jobs are going in the opposite direction.

Here is an example from another such expert (a former Californian who apparently retired out of state) published in Athens County, Ohio -

Arnold, this is not a movie set, where many different kinds of choices by the director can all lead to box-office smashes and soaring popularity. In California politics, there are no easy choices. Whatever you do is likely to cause great discomfort to many and drive down your poll ratings.

You need taxes to get California out of its deficit. But Republicans have vilified taxes, making it almost impossible for you, or any politician for that matter, to raise taxes for the public good.

I could cite many more. I won't. Just go to Google news and enter "California taxes" and you will have over 250 stories to choose from - all generated in the last 72 hours.

So listen up, class. Here is the deal. All of the deal.

California voters have, over the years, moved the state to a proportional budgetary system. Most of the state's funds are spoken for - the voters made it that way in a series of propositions because they don't trust their legislature.

"Bad" the experts say. "Such rigidity makes deficits hard to overcome" they say.

They aren't listening.

The word is "proportionate." Got that? As in "proportion." That means that as the pie gets smaller, the discretionary pie slice gets smaller too, as do almost all of the other slices. Schools. Roads. Infrastructure. Social spending. Everything but pension contributions - they can't be scaled back. The state is on the hook for those, since employees are not paid proportionately. Relative to the other slices, that slice grows at each deficit crunch.

For those thinking that the problem is unemployment, they need to actually research their stories prior to publishing them.

Gray Davis et al. got an IPO windfall. Remember the 'dot coms?' Remember the IPO wealth, the super bowl ads, the sock puppets, and the IT workers without degrees making over $100K a year? Oh, that.

That speculative orgy produced a huge windfall to the state of California. Again, look at the tax code. Quiz for California Studies 101 (in the university catalog as CalStud 101): What are the state's marginal capital gains rates for those dot com millionaires (the folks working the mail room) and the dot com billionaires (the mail room supervisors)?

It is a bit of a trick question. Did I say "capital gains rate?" Such would elicit a hearty guffaw from the California State Board of Equalization. "What do you mean 'capital gains rate' sucker?!?" they'd retort. "That's plain old income, you carpet bagger!!! Pay the 9% or go to jail, asshole!!!"

"But I held for over a year..." whines the mail room mogul.

"Bwwwwaaaahhhhaaaaahhhhhaaaaaahhhaaaaa!!!!" retorts the SBOE.

Is that a clear enough illustration? Vivid? Entertaining? Circus like? I hope so, because maybe it will then attract the limited attention of all of these out of state experts, and maybe get a few CalStud 101 students to engage that neglected part of their educations called "Critical Thinking".

Gray Davis et al. saw an expansion of state revenue in excess of 30% in 4 short years. If the notion that this is an employment problem were to hold water, then the state would have seen a 30% expansion in jobs in the same period. It didn't. Nor did the inverse occur - the tax revenue loss from less than 4% fewer employed does not account for the $30 Billion hole.

Nor did this come from property tax revenue - while prices climbed, only the actual homes sold get hit up for higher taxes (see Prop 13, students). Most of that revenue goes to local (not state) government as well. If you are a homeowner here who sits and holds, your property taxes can only go up 1%. Furthermore, that tax bas continues to grow, not shrink, because California home prices have climbed throughout this budget crisis.

IPO windfall. That was it. And it is gone. For a very long time.

California's state income tax burden is among the highest in the country. Because the cost of living is high here, you also get bracket creep - folks paying in a higher federal bracket for the same standard of living that a lower bracket payer gets in, say, Ohio ("Why would a California school teacher retire to Athens County, Ohio?", the CalStud 101 newbie who brought his brain stem to class might ask himself).

Were the voters of California right to distrust their legislature? Open your books to this page.

STATEMENT OF CALIFORNIA ECONOMISTS
IN OPPOSITION TO TAX INCREASES

February 24, 2003

The massive California budget deficit is the direct result of excessive spending by our state government: State spending increased 37 percent over only two years because of a revenue windfall from taxes on incomes and capital gains. New taxes will not solve our budget problem because the Legislature and Governor always face powerful pressures to preserve and expand spending programs, and new revenues from higher taxes would reduce the immediate need for fiscal discipline. This political pressure for higher spending means also that any new taxes imposed "temporarily" would be likely to prove permanent, so that even ostensibly temporary tax increases would increase uncertainty and impose other adverse economic effects. In short: Just as every California family must live within its means, so must California government learn to do so as well.

The California budget crisis can be solved only through spending restraint and the implementation of policies yielding enhanced economic growth and a larger tax base. In the short term, spending must be disciplined; tax increases are inappropriate because they would facilitate greater government spending at the expense of private spending, that is, at the expense of the economy in the aggregate. Over the longer term, spending discipline must be maintained; tax increases would induce individuals, businesses, employment, and investment opportunities to locate elsewhere. Instead, the long-term tax burden must be reduced, state-owned assets that could be used more productively in the private sector must be sold, and many regulations that increase the costs of creating and operating businesses and that reduce employment opportunities and wages must be reformed or eliminated.

Signatories:

James C.W. Ahiakpor, California State University, Hayward
William R. Allen, University of California, Los Angeles
Charles W. Baird, California State University, Hayward
Richard A. Bilas, California State University, Bakersfield (Emeritus)
Don Booth, Chapman University
Thomas E. Borcherding, Claremont Graduate University
Henry N. Butle, Chapman University
Darin G. Clay University of Southern California
John Cogan Hoover Institution, Stanford University
Henry Demmert, Santa Clara University
Milton Friedman, Hoover Institution, Stanford University (Nobel Laureate)
Joe Fuhrig, Golden Gate University
Gary Galles, Pepperdine University
Peter Gordon, University of Southern California
Dale M. Heien, University of California, Davis
John M. Heineke, Santa Clara University
David R. Henderson, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, San Jose State University
Mark Jackson, San Jose State University
Daniel Klein, Santa Clara University
Robert Krol, California State University, Northridge
Arthur Laffer, Laffer Associates
Clay LaForce, University of California, Los Angeles (Emeritus Dean, Anderson School of Management)
Tibor R. Machan, Chapman University
Michael L. Marlow, Calif. Polytechnic State Univ., San Luis Obispo
John G. Matsusaka, University of Southern California
Lawrence J. McQuillan, Pacific Research Institute
Tom Means, San Jose State University
Robert J. Michaels, California State University, Fullerton
Lydia D. Ortega, San Jose State University
Aris Protopapadakis, University of Southern California
Alan C. Shapiro, University of Southern California
Stephen Shmanske, California State University, Hayward
George P. Shultz, Hoover Institution, Stanford University (former Secretary of State)
Edward Stringham, San Jose State University
Shirley Svorny, California State University, Northridge
Paul J. Zak, Claremont Graduate University
Benjamin Zycher, Pacific Research Institute

Er ... Yes. They were right to distrust the legislature. BTW, students - notice the list of experts who actually live here.

Then the students are directed to read this report (in PDF).

is heard from the first few rows of students - the one's in the back aren't paying attention - they want to know where this "CalStud" is. The geeky guy leading the class couldn't be him.

Why the "gasp?" Because that windfall went to multi-year structural programs, not the ad-hoc ones - even though the revenue was known to be windfall at the time. Further, the 37% spending increase in two years outpaced the revenue growth rate of 30% in 4 years. They gobbled up the growing tax base in two very short years, and tacked on another 25% on pure momentum.

As a result, all Californians must now work from January 1 to July 3rd just to cover their share of state government spending - ranking 40th in the nation on Americans for Tax Reform's "Cost of Government Day" list. The economy didn't grow 37% in that period. Nor did the population (it actually started to shrink, sans foreign immigration).

So, class. Anyone else care to offer up tax increases (a la Bustamente's "tough love") as the sole means of resolving our crisis?

I've got my grade book out.

Adam Sullivan, 13:47 | 0 comments