Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Battlestar Preview
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Parental entitlements
Simple question: is it better for the government to give money to people at the end of their working lives, when it won't result in any payoff, OR to people at the beginning of their adult life, who will pay a lifetime of taxes?
Hilary Clinton's $5000 payoff to new children is a good idea. Really! As a Republican supply- sider, I understand incentives. It won't matter to most people, but if just a few on the margin end up having and raising a child who then pays $1 million in taxes over their lifetime... the government is ahead. If someone goes to college as a result, they'll probably make more money. More taxes. Etc. It would pay for itself. I mean, why not? We give retirees a lot more that that... We should invest in the future rather than simply transfer wealth between generations.
We have a Social Security shorfall because of a lack of workers making wages. We removed the economic incentive for having children to provide for parents in their old age. We have given no new incentive to replace that. So, now we have an aging population and fewer children.
And who deserves government money more? Who's the future?
A direct payment to parents would be an even better idea! I'm all for entitlements that encourage good parenting- cheaper medical checkups, school vouchers, stuff like that. From the point of view of the government, future productive taxpayers should be the goal.
Seriously, it makes little sense to spend so much on people at the end of their working lives, who just finished their peak earning years, and neglect people just starting out who sacrifice to have children who will be paying the government's bills. It's bass- ackwards.
Hilary Clinton's $5000 payoff to new children is a good idea. Really! As a Republican supply- sider, I understand incentives. It won't matter to most people, but if just a few on the margin end up having and raising a child who then pays $1 million in taxes over their lifetime... the government is ahead. If someone goes to college as a result, they'll probably make more money. More taxes. Etc. It would pay for itself. I mean, why not? We give retirees a lot more that that... We should invest in the future rather than simply transfer wealth between generations.
We have a Social Security shorfall because of a lack of workers making wages. We removed the economic incentive for having children to provide for parents in their old age. We have given no new incentive to replace that. So, now we have an aging population and fewer children.
And who deserves government money more? Who's the future?
A direct payment to parents would be an even better idea! I'm all for entitlements that encourage good parenting- cheaper medical checkups, school vouchers, stuff like that. From the point of view of the government, future productive taxpayers should be the goal.
Seriously, it makes little sense to spend so much on people at the end of their working lives, who just finished their peak earning years, and neglect people just starting out who sacrifice to have children who will be paying the government's bills. It's bass- ackwards.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Reconciliation without government
Dean Barnett writes a good piece here, about the success of the surge. He repeats something that I've been hearing a lot, that political reconciliation is necessary. I'm not sure that it is. Iraq is an Arab country, except for the Kurds up north. No Arab country really has an effective government as we think of it. Either they are 'soft' authoritarians (Thomas Friedman's terminology) or brutal dictators. Saddam and Hafez Assad ran police states. Egypt is closer to that than most people realize. The gulf monarchies are much more tribal, with little violence until you get too far out of line (like when Al Qeada attacks them).
In Yemen, the central government controls the cities and that's about it. In Iraq, there are relatively peaceful areas in Kurdistan, around Basrah, and recently in Anbar where the central government has little influence. Effective central government is not prerequisite to peace. It's also odd that we acknowledge how evil Saddam's regime was, and yet we want a strong central government for Iraq. Perhaps a weak one is a better guarantee for the future of the Iraqi people?
I don't think a formal partition is a good idea. If you're on the wrong side of the line, you get killed or driven out. This has happened over and over, from the Balkans to India. Partitions are bloodbaths. However, a de facto abrogation of government power to local entities might end the war. Sunnis mostly want to be left alone. They want some of the goodies, but the idea that they might take over the whole country again has been laid to rest.
The central government should act to suppress violence and to guarantee basic rights (like not being forced to leave your home). The Iraqi Army is getting there, the national police is not. Local police forces are showing some promise.
It's really odd for Americans, particularly conservatives, to want the national government to solve all these problems. The Iraqi government will be a mess as long as Iraqi culture remains tribal and corruption is accepted. As long as that's true, perhaps we should accommodate it. Govern at the lowest level possible, while working with those national institutions that do function. Ignore the rest. Don't reinforce failure.
For a lot of war supporters, we need to discard notions that Iraq is going to fundamentally change by being democratic. It probably won't for a long time. We can certainly make it better, but functioning national institutions are going to have to wait. In the meantime, local government is the way to go.
In Yemen, the central government controls the cities and that's about it. In Iraq, there are relatively peaceful areas in Kurdistan, around Basrah, and recently in Anbar where the central government has little influence. Effective central government is not prerequisite to peace. It's also odd that we acknowledge how evil Saddam's regime was, and yet we want a strong central government for Iraq. Perhaps a weak one is a better guarantee for the future of the Iraqi people?
I don't think a formal partition is a good idea. If you're on the wrong side of the line, you get killed or driven out. This has happened over and over, from the Balkans to India. Partitions are bloodbaths. However, a de facto abrogation of government power to local entities might end the war. Sunnis mostly want to be left alone. They want some of the goodies, but the idea that they might take over the whole country again has been laid to rest.
The central government should act to suppress violence and to guarantee basic rights (like not being forced to leave your home). The Iraqi Army is getting there, the national police is not. Local police forces are showing some promise.
It's really odd for Americans, particularly conservatives, to want the national government to solve all these problems. The Iraqi government will be a mess as long as Iraqi culture remains tribal and corruption is accepted. As long as that's true, perhaps we should accommodate it. Govern at the lowest level possible, while working with those national institutions that do function. Ignore the rest. Don't reinforce failure.
For a lot of war supporters, we need to discard notions that Iraq is going to fundamentally change by being democratic. It probably won't for a long time. We can certainly make it better, but functioning national institutions are going to have to wait. In the meantime, local government is the way to go.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Future History
Speculating, I wonder what a narrative of an Iraqi victory would look like. I suspect something like this,
Led by politically influenced intelligence about nonexistant WMDs, George Bush convinced a reluctant Congress to authorize war on Iraq. Saddam Hussein was overthrown, but a Sunni insurgency threatened to push the country into civil war. The American public, while reelecting Bush in 2004, showed their displeasure with how the war was being run in 2006. The President finally changed course as a result of Democratic demands for concrete progress. The military was finally allowed to pursue a winning strategy after the Secretary of Defense was forced to resign by the Democratic electoral victory. The victory occured in spite of the President's many errors, and the Democratic party contributed to victory by voicing the concerns of the American people.
Led by politically influenced intelligence about nonexistant WMDs, George Bush convinced a reluctant Congress to authorize war on Iraq. Saddam Hussein was overthrown, but a Sunni insurgency threatened to push the country into civil war. The American public, while reelecting Bush in 2004, showed their displeasure with how the war was being run in 2006. The President finally changed course as a result of Democratic demands for concrete progress. The military was finally allowed to pursue a winning strategy after the Secretary of Defense was forced to resign by the Democratic electoral victory. The victory occured in spite of the President's many errors, and the Democratic party contributed to victory by voicing the concerns of the American people.
Everyone gets credit, the President gets dumped on, and the USA wins. It's not completely true, but narratives never are.
Missing the point
It seems to me that too much effort goes into attacking and defending past policy. Arguing about the President's historical legacy while history is still being made shows a striking lack of perspective. Is how the President is viewed by posterity really all that important?
If we have to sacrifice the President's legacy to win the war, let's do it. He's a politician. This is a nation. The war has become far too associated with a few men, when in reality it's a problem for all of us. Defending the President rather than the war is a big mistake, and has cost a lot of political capital. The Left has made a LOT of good criticisms. Maybe the best course is to absorb the valid critiques in order to improve our chances of winning? We don't have to tie ourselves to the President's mast when what matters is defeating Al Qeada. Winning is more important than being right.
Give the skeptical members of the public some daylight between winning the war and supporting the President. I suspect there's 15- 20% of us out there who don't particularly care for Mr. Bush, but do not want to lose.
There is nothing inherently unwinnable about this war. This isn't the first guerrilla war in history, and there's nothing about the US that makes it incapable of winning. If something isn't being done right, assign blame, fix it, and move on. The problem is that the blame game has become more important than winning. Why the hell are we still arguing about WMDs when the stakes have changed over the last 4 years? Why are we still mindlessly defending the President's choices when so many of them have clearly been wrong? Let's live in reality, rather than alternate universes.
Lastly, whatever legacy the President leaves is totally dependent on whether we win or not. If we win, he'll look good. If we lose, he's a dog. No amount of ink will will substitute for the blood spilled. The American people are pretty good at seeing through spin. When Iraq looks bad, then the public notices. It also notices when things improve, which should be heartening to everyone who complains about media bias.
If we have to sacrifice the President's legacy to win the war, let's do it. He's a politician. This is a nation. The war has become far too associated with a few men, when in reality it's a problem for all of us. Defending the President rather than the war is a big mistake, and has cost a lot of political capital. The Left has made a LOT of good criticisms. Maybe the best course is to absorb the valid critiques in order to improve our chances of winning? We don't have to tie ourselves to the President's mast when what matters is defeating Al Qeada. Winning is more important than being right.
Give the skeptical members of the public some daylight between winning the war and supporting the President. I suspect there's 15- 20% of us out there who don't particularly care for Mr. Bush, but do not want to lose.
There is nothing inherently unwinnable about this war. This isn't the first guerrilla war in history, and there's nothing about the US that makes it incapable of winning. If something isn't being done right, assign blame, fix it, and move on. The problem is that the blame game has become more important than winning. Why the hell are we still arguing about WMDs when the stakes have changed over the last 4 years? Why are we still mindlessly defending the President's choices when so many of them have clearly been wrong? Let's live in reality, rather than alternate universes.
Lastly, whatever legacy the President leaves is totally dependent on whether we win or not. If we win, he'll look good. If we lose, he's a dog. No amount of ink will will substitute for the blood spilled. The American people are pretty good at seeing through spin. When Iraq looks bad, then the public notices. It also notices when things improve, which should be heartening to everyone who complains about media bias.
Let us win
The dynamic in Iraq has changed, but more important is the dynamic in America.
Gen Petreus dominated the news. His testimony was far more important than the President's speech. The speech was a footnote.
What has happened is that the military is making a direct appeal to the American people to let them win the war. This makes the war theirs, not the President's. It's an appeal not to break faith with the men and women fighting in Iraq.
Vietnam is very important here. Most people will admit that it was a mistake, but most people also have little use for the antiwar movement of the time. The disrespect shown to the military 40 years ago casts a long shadow. People don't want to do that again. There is also the realization that the military lost because the public would no longer support it. There's collective guilt about that.
While it is OK to attack the President, going after the military is a lot more difficult. The attack ads against Petreus tried to personalize the war, just like the antiwar movement focuses on President Bush. The trouble is the uniform. Petreus doesn't have much personality beyond his uniform. He's very much a stereotypical professional soldier. He projects competance. This is all very intentional, I'm sure. He's a stand- in for all the officers and men in Iraq. The less personality he shows, the better he'll make his point. I think he'll do the most good by staying the hell away from cameras and reporters. Not letting himself become a focus for antiwar anger is the best strategy.
The military is the most respected institution in the country. By bypassing the political leadership (anyone seen Sec. Gates lately?) they are using that influence to make the war about them rather than the President. They're saying "OK, so there was no WMD. The war was run badly by Bush and Rumsfeld. But now the professionals are running it and we're starting to win. Let us finish the job. You don't like them, but you respect us. Don't let us down, like you did in Vietnam."
This could work. Everything does come down to results. If the Army and Marines can keep winning, I think they'll keep getting the support of the American people. If the President can shut up and let the military remain the focus of the war, then we might just get through this. War supporters should give people enough breathing room to support the war effort without having to endorse the President. Hell, let him be a scapegoat if we can win. Admit what went wrong. Assign blame. There's plenty to go around.
The war has to stop being a Republican war. It has to stop being Bush's war. If it becomes the US military's war, then it's everyone's war. And we can win. It's amazing what you can accomplish if you don't care about taking credit. The war is more important than partisan points.
EDIT: Thanks to Dr. Reynolds for linking.
Gen Petreus dominated the news. His testimony was far more important than the President's speech. The speech was a footnote.
What has happened is that the military is making a direct appeal to the American people to let them win the war. This makes the war theirs, not the President's. It's an appeal not to break faith with the men and women fighting in Iraq.
Vietnam is very important here. Most people will admit that it was a mistake, but most people also have little use for the antiwar movement of the time. The disrespect shown to the military 40 years ago casts a long shadow. People don't want to do that again. There is also the realization that the military lost because the public would no longer support it. There's collective guilt about that.
While it is OK to attack the President, going after the military is a lot more difficult. The attack ads against Petreus tried to personalize the war, just like the antiwar movement focuses on President Bush. The trouble is the uniform. Petreus doesn't have much personality beyond his uniform. He's very much a stereotypical professional soldier. He projects competance. This is all very intentional, I'm sure. He's a stand- in for all the officers and men in Iraq. The less personality he shows, the better he'll make his point. I think he'll do the most good by staying the hell away from cameras and reporters. Not letting himself become a focus for antiwar anger is the best strategy.
The military is the most respected institution in the country. By bypassing the political leadership (anyone seen Sec. Gates lately?) they are using that influence to make the war about them rather than the President. They're saying "OK, so there was no WMD. The war was run badly by Bush and Rumsfeld. But now the professionals are running it and we're starting to win. Let us finish the job. You don't like them, but you respect us. Don't let us down, like you did in Vietnam."
This could work. Everything does come down to results. If the Army and Marines can keep winning, I think they'll keep getting the support of the American people. If the President can shut up and let the military remain the focus of the war, then we might just get through this. War supporters should give people enough breathing room to support the war effort without having to endorse the President. Hell, let him be a scapegoat if we can win. Admit what went wrong. Assign blame. There's plenty to go around.
The war has to stop being a Republican war. It has to stop being Bush's war. If it becomes the US military's war, then it's everyone's war. And we can win. It's amazing what you can accomplish if you don't care about taking credit. The war is more important than partisan points.
EDIT: Thanks to Dr. Reynolds for linking.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Uninformed BSG speculation
1. The fleet is going to die. Why do I think this? Because the tillium refinery ship is gone, and they made a big point of making sure we knew it. Why?
Because tillium is the only resource that Galactica cannot recycle. Water and food only need to be acquired when they are lost somehow, as in "Water" from the first season and "The Passage" in season three. So, the only thing Galactica has to have is fuel for the jump drive- and that requires the tillium ship.
According to Caprica Six, the Cylons were tracking that ship, so Lee (predictably) suggested that it be sent on a different route to try and decoy the Cylons. Clearly this did not work, but it is safe. So how did the Cylons find them? Coincidence? Common navigation toward Earth? Disinformation on the part of Six? A bigger plan (more later)? Why go through so much trouble to make sure that ship is safe for season four? Because it needs a cover story as to why it, in particular, survives. Which means the fleet won't.
Other support for this theory- all major characters end the season on Galactica- even the President. All four new Cylons are on the ship- including one who would not normally be. Galactica and the fleet have survived many "we're all doomed" situations before, and this is a great opportunity for the writers to really screw with us- this time twenty minutes really means twenty minutes. And it'll prove that there are consequences, and the the Cylons really are trying to kill them all. It would give the show credibility.
Alternative- being out of gas is an important plot element. Escaping without the tillium ship leaves them stuck somewhere. Finding the ship becomes a plotline.
2. The President, if not a Cylon, is certainly more than she seems. OK, remember in the mini when Six talks to someone in the park after Baltar leaves? Who do we know that saw them in the park? Laura. When Adama finds the '12 cylon models' note in his quarters, who had just been there? Laura. Who pushed for Galactica to stay with the fleet? Who has the visions? Who gets a mysterious cancer cure from a half- cylon (albeit temporary)? Who has a bout of nausea just as the fleet loses power in the last season finale (this is blatant on the part of the writers)? Common dreams with the cylon women...There's something strange here. We are supposed to notice it. They're beating us over the head.
The dark version- everything that happened, from the holocaust to the exodus, was Laura's plan. Who or what is she? I don't know, but she really wants humans to get to Earth. She really wants Hera, too. Is she concious of what she is doing? I don't think so. Otherwise why let New Caprica happen?
Baltar is her enemy. He tries to foil her at almost every turn. How did he survive a nuclear blast on Caprica? Isn't it unlikely that he was rescued? That seems to invalidate the idea that he has some cosmic significance, but the show regularly does this stuff. AND Boomer was a Cylon, perhaps she landed there as part of a directive.
Head- Six is hard to figure out. She can't just be trying to wipe out humanity, or they'd never have made it out of season one. She wanted New Caprica to happen, but I don't know why. Why was that important? Maybe going to Earth is a bad idea, and Laura is really the bad guy! Baltar becomes the savior (cough) of humanity in this reading, although not by his own volition.
It all comes down to who gets Hera, and I don't think it's quite so simple as Laura/Athena good, Caprica Six ???? and Baltar/Head Six bad.
Really far out, perhaps the show ends with the Cylons and a few remaining humans (maybe a very, very few humans) repopulating Earth. Maybe a cosmic cycle of Earth to Kobol to Colonies, over and over. All this has happened before and all that jazz. Maybe there is an end to the cycle, and the point of the show is to break free of it and build their own destiny rather than the one planned for them. Maybe Baltar is important for that. That would require defying Laura at some point...
Because tillium is the only resource that Galactica cannot recycle. Water and food only need to be acquired when they are lost somehow, as in "Water" from the first season and "The Passage" in season three. So, the only thing Galactica has to have is fuel for the jump drive- and that requires the tillium ship.
According to Caprica Six, the Cylons were tracking that ship, so Lee (predictably) suggested that it be sent on a different route to try and decoy the Cylons. Clearly this did not work, but it is safe. So how did the Cylons find them? Coincidence? Common navigation toward Earth? Disinformation on the part of Six? A bigger plan (more later)? Why go through so much trouble to make sure that ship is safe for season four? Because it needs a cover story as to why it, in particular, survives. Which means the fleet won't.
Other support for this theory- all major characters end the season on Galactica- even the President. All four new Cylons are on the ship- including one who would not normally be. Galactica and the fleet have survived many "we're all doomed" situations before, and this is a great opportunity for the writers to really screw with us- this time twenty minutes really means twenty minutes. And it'll prove that there are consequences, and the the Cylons really are trying to kill them all. It would give the show credibility.
Alternative- being out of gas is an important plot element. Escaping without the tillium ship leaves them stuck somewhere. Finding the ship becomes a plotline.
2. The President, if not a Cylon, is certainly more than she seems. OK, remember in the mini when Six talks to someone in the park after Baltar leaves? Who do we know that saw them in the park? Laura. When Adama finds the '12 cylon models' note in his quarters, who had just been there? Laura. Who pushed for Galactica to stay with the fleet? Who has the visions? Who gets a mysterious cancer cure from a half- cylon (albeit temporary)? Who has a bout of nausea just as the fleet loses power in the last season finale (this is blatant on the part of the writers)? Common dreams with the cylon women...There's something strange here. We are supposed to notice it. They're beating us over the head.
The dark version- everything that happened, from the holocaust to the exodus, was Laura's plan. Who or what is she? I don't know, but she really wants humans to get to Earth. She really wants Hera, too. Is she concious of what she is doing? I don't think so. Otherwise why let New Caprica happen?
Baltar is her enemy. He tries to foil her at almost every turn. How did he survive a nuclear blast on Caprica? Isn't it unlikely that he was rescued? That seems to invalidate the idea that he has some cosmic significance, but the show regularly does this stuff. AND Boomer was a Cylon, perhaps she landed there as part of a directive.
Head- Six is hard to figure out. She can't just be trying to wipe out humanity, or they'd never have made it out of season one. She wanted New Caprica to happen, but I don't know why. Why was that important? Maybe going to Earth is a bad idea, and Laura is really the bad guy! Baltar becomes the savior (cough) of humanity in this reading, although not by his own volition.
It all comes down to who gets Hera, and I don't think it's quite so simple as Laura/Athena good, Caprica Six ???? and Baltar/Head Six bad.
Really far out, perhaps the show ends with the Cylons and a few remaining humans (maybe a very, very few humans) repopulating Earth. Maybe a cosmic cycle of Earth to Kobol to Colonies, over and over. All this has happened before and all that jazz. Maybe there is an end to the cycle, and the point of the show is to break free of it and build their own destiny rather than the one planned for them. Maybe Baltar is important for that. That would require defying Laura at some point...
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Mecha are stupid
Monday, August 20, 2007
The world in stats
Watch this.
http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/92
Stat site here
http://gapminder.org/
Incredible. Can't say much about it.
http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/92
Stat site here
http://gapminder.org/
Incredible. Can't say much about it.
