Is Less But Poor Regulation Better Than More But Good Regulation?

US demands air passengers ask its permission to fly | The Register

This is an absolutely incredible step that the United States government is taking against the airline industry. It is hard to conceive of how a complete passenger manifest can be produced 72 hours before a flight is to take off, yet the Transportation Safety Administration seems intent on forcing the airline industry to do the impossible: produce a definitive list of passenger 72 prior to a flight’s departure. 

The names on this manifest are then going to be compared against a massive list of terror suspects in order to clear the flight for departure. The number of names on this list of suspects is astonishing.

ACLU’s Barry Steinhardt quoted press reports of 500,000 to 750,000 people on the watch list (of which the no-fly list is a subset). “If there are that many terrorists in the US, we’d all be dead.”

TSA representative Kip Hawley noted that the list has been carefully investigated and halved over the last year. “Half of grossly bloated is still bloated,” Steinhardt replied.

What is most  vexing about this proposition is that the TSA has offered little evidence that this draconian measure will reduce the threat of terrorism in any measurable way. Hence, the airline industry–arguably the must competitive on the planet–is going to be forced to lose money by refusing to sell tickets during the 72 hour period before a flight without any real justification. This step by the TSA provides significant support for the contention that the only reason Americans resent government regulation is that American government regulation tends to be ineffective and senseless. Perhaps Frank Zappa said it best: 

 The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly enforced.

West Hollywood Book Fair

The West Hollywood Book Fair is not by any means the largest in the country or even in LA. The largest book fair in the primordial soup is indisputably the Los Angeles Times Festival of Books, which is held annually at UCLA. The West Hollywood Book Fair is a very small and civilized affair held in West Hollywood Park. (The term “park” is used liberally here, for the actual plot of land allotted to the public under this designation is astoundingly paltry. Public spaces in the primordial soup typically are astoundingly paltry.)

The WeHo Book Fair is composed primarily, naturally, of gay and new age literature. A healthy contingent of writing groups are also well represented because this is the city where nearly 50% of the population (yours truly excluded, for now) are writers. And, last, though by no means least, are the various political groups: the ACLU, Pacifica Radio and other fringe groups. Especially radical groups were pleasantly and conspicuously absent.

I was surprised to see John Dean‘s name listed on a panel that was about to start in five minutes, so I lingered to hear what he and the others were going to say. The other panelists were Dennis Loo and Susan Estrich, who neglected to show up.

It proved to be an instructive panel to attend primarily because of the juxtaposition of an eminently rational man like John Dean against a polemicist like Dennis Loo. (The juxtaposition would be instructive were it made with any polemicist, even with Bill O’Reilly.) Such a juxtaposition is the perfect means of demonstrating the intellectual deficiencies of the political fringes. Whether it’s the radical right or the radical left, placing either one next to a man who coolly and civilly advocates the boring, fair and historically proven method of due process vanquishes all doubt regarding whom people need to support politically: the boring guy.

Lest one be tempted to dismiss the boring guy, one must bear in mind that the boring guy here, John Dean, brought down the entire Nixon Presidency. Hence, it is absurd to think that such men are ineffective or otherwise useless in the establishment of an effective government. Quite the contrary, history and the cabal of fanatics that has been in control of the US government since 1994 clearly demonstrate that it is the fanatics that invariably destroy governments and subsequently nations. Hitler, Mussolini, Khomeini, Pol Pot, Karadzic, Mugabe and countless others have proved the destructive force of fanaticism beyond the shadow of any doubt. Yet, we are stuck with fanatics.

And, what do we do against fanatics? Dean admirably argued for the restoration of the processes that have kept fanatics out of the political system and have kept in check the fanatics who managed to enter politics. Loo argued for buying and wearing orange colored products in order to advocate impeachment of Bush and Cheney.

Dean argued that the processes that assert the will of the people and that advocate the interests of the nation need to be restored. Loo asserted that we need a “hero” to fight this battle against the titans of evil who are governing our nation. Dean advocated a practical focus on winning elections. Loo simply asserted that elections are hopeless, and that we have no remedy, though he did offer hope in the form of his book. 

The moderator gave me the microphone, and I asked these men what we, the disenfranchised public, can do to reverse the nation’s course? Loo suggested that I buy orange personal decorations, because it was his brilliant idea to start an “orange campaign” for impeachment. Dean reasserted the fact that the Republicans understand the importance of process enough to have modified it heavily in their favor. He, therefore, advocated that Democrats erase these imbalances while they wield power. Loo did not disagree with this, but all he could advocate was wearing orange and protesting.

Loo also employed fear tactics for no apparent reason. He insisted that the US will attack Iran, that electronic voting machines are hackable and will be hacked, that impeachment is the only answer even if diverts resources from worthwhile causes. Naturally, he offered no real remedy to these doomsday scenarios. An ostensibly educated man, Loo could not offer so much as a notion of a process by which electronic voting machines could be challenged. Fear of the devices was apparently enough for him.

And, that is where I lost my faith in the “left” in American politics. The American “left” differs little tactically from the radical right in American politics. Its tactics consist of fear. Practically, the difference is like night and day. The right, as Dean correctly noted, understands process. It understands power, and it has the desire to wield it. It will go far in corrupting the process, as Hitler did (Dean’s comparison, not mine!), in order to wield absolute power. And, the American “left” responds to this corruption of process with a symbolic orange campaign. In insisting on a “hero” it was almost as if Loo was begging for another Martin Luther to start a new movement, a new government, a new nation.

Heroes are the desire of the hopeless. I have no heros for I have some confidence (still) in my abilities. Dean asked for no heroes because he has been in politics enough to know that process has a far greater impact than the impact that any one “hero” can have. After all, the only difference between democracy and fascism is, in fact, the process. 

Perhaps it’s in keeping with the American tradition of creating a new religious sect or movement when one is not satisfied with one’s innate religion. The American left’s fantasies of revolution (a mantra repeated ad nauseum by the left and the right), however, can never become reality. Freedom of religion enables new religions. The Constitutional system provides little recourse for change outside the Constitution itself. Hence, Dean is absolutely right when he says that it is important to restore and repair the processes of governance, and Loo and his fellow “leftists” are little more than egomaniacal fear mongers who are far more content with selling orange clothing than they are with advocating action. “Turn on, tune in, drop out” is a message that many baby boomers are happy to propagate, albeit from their comfortable tenured positions. And, somehow, they are mystified by the (good) fact that they wield no power.

Ahhh, to be free to think and to act. Neither the left nor the right will ever advocate freedom of thought and expression, for this freedom is inimical to the stupidity that both sides advocate under the headings of objectivism, neo-conservatism, liberalism, communism and, yes, even conservatism. 

Failing Infrastructure is not News

Online NewsHour: America’s Infrastructure Needs Crucial Repairs — April 4, 2006

Ever since one of the major bridges connecting Minneapolis to suburbs across the Mississippi river spontaneously collapsed, considerable time has been spent on the discussion of the state of the American infrastructure. In all of these discussion, little mention was ever made of the bipartisan report commissioned by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. The results were released over a year and a half ago, and the commission endorsed the findings of the Association of Civil Engineers’ estimates.

What the association of civil engineers has done — and they do this every two or three years — is they do some kind of a balance sheet of the nation’s public assets. And they give it a grade, about A, B, C, D, on the level of being adequate.

And they’ve come up — their latest figure is that it would take a $1.6 trillion dollars to bring the infrastructure of this country up to an acceptable level of decency. We’re falling another $300 billion every two or three years behind because we don’t provide adequate support to this problem.

Now, I can also tell you that it’s very difficult to do this if you religiously think that you can’t raise taxes, and that you can’t raise revenues, and that fees are a problem, and, certainly, taxes are a problem.

Future failures of the sort that unraveled so dramatically in Minnesota in August of 2007 should therefore come as no surprise to anyone. We were all adequately forewarned, it would seem.

“Bush is a Moron” Declares Alan Greenspan

Greenspan Is Critical Of Bush in Memoir | washingtonpost.com

The meaning is quite unmistakable. The implicit comparison between Clinton and Bush (W) made by Greenspan in the following paragraph (page two of the article linked above) necessarily leads to the conclusion stated in the title of this post.

However, he calls Clinton a “risk taker” who had shown a “preference for dealing in facts,” and presents Clinton and himself almost as soul mates. “Here was a fellow information hound. . . . We both read books and were curious and thoughtful about the world. . . . I never ceased to be surprised by his fascination with economic detail: the effect of Canadian lumber on housing prices and inflation. . . . He had an eye for the big picture too.”

In the rest of article, of course, Greenspan lambastes every Republican official from Bush down to Hastert and DeLay. His acerbic language (in the context of Greenspanese like “irrational exuberance”) leads one to think of how incredibly poorly these politicians must have acted in order to draw the ire of the most stolid man on the planet. Greenspan’s reaction is not just extreme by Greenspan’s own standards. It is unprecedented in American history.

Is it not?

A Hopeless Cause?

Presidential Approval Ratings Since 2001

W approval ratings since 2001
If politics is a popularity game, then this graph paints a rather hopeless picture for the future of warmongers.

And a hopeful one for humanity.

This Is Your Government on Iraq

Program shows CIA behind Wikipedia entries – ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

With their baffling means of operating, the CIA and other US government agencies have given Wikipedia the greatest endorsement of legitimacy. If the greatest institutions that the US government has erected in the service of dissembling and misinforming have elected to target Wikipedia, then it must be the case that Wikipedia is a superb and reliable source of information.

Why theese agancies care to modify the entry regarding Adam Smith may remain classified for eternity, however.

One Manual the White House Has

White House Manual Details How to Deal With Protesters – washingtonpost.com

Why is it that there is so much more documentation of the GOP’s expertise in staging appearances and playing dirty politics than there is documentation of expertise in military and economic theory and management? When they are compared with the military failures in Iraq economic discord here in the US, the public relations successes of the White House strongly hint at the distinct absence of manuals for economic and military success.

Woe be the US Economy

Cisco CEO sees strong world economy, U.S. bumps – washingtonpost.com

There is ample political criticism in the commentary of CEOs like Cisco’s John Chambers. All CEOs of major American companies see opportunities for growth in every corner of the planet except in the United States. If this does not frighten people of the political establishment in the US, then it ought to give them pause, at the very least, when it is time to digest claims that slashing taxes and deregulating markets are beneficial. After all, according to CEOs, the net effect of reducing taxation and relaxing regulations in the US has been the creating of economic growth outside the US.

Preview to Petraeus?

NIE Cites ‘Uneven’ Security Gains, Faults Iraqi Leaders – washingtonpost.com

Another government report is released, and yet again, the picture it paints contradicts virtually every claim made by the prosecutors of the military operation in Iraq. The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) released August 24, 2007, contains many discouraging findings, of which the following is typical.

The IC [Intelligence Community] assesses that the Iraqi Government will become more precarious over the next six to 12 months because of criticism by other members of the major Shia coalition (the Unified Iraqi Alliance, UIA), Grand Ayatollah Sistani, and other Sunni and Kurdish
parties. Divisions between Maliki and the Sadrists have increased, and Shia factions have explored alternative coalitions aimed at constraining Maliki.

It will be shocking if the highly anticipated Petraeus report contradicts any of these findings. After all, the findings of the Director of National defense have been quite consistent over the past few years. So, how on earth could Petraeus produce a report that categorically contradicts every one of the DNI’s major findings and the findings of other government and military bodies for the past four years? How could one general produce an assessment of reality that differs dramatically from the assessments of all of his predecessors? Why do these senseless pleas for patience keep finding sympathetic ears? Isn’t anyone listening?

And, if Petreaus does contradict everybody, would that mean that Commander in Chief was stupid enough to appoint boneheads to lead the Iraqi operation for the past four years? Or would it mean that Petraeus is the bonehead? The American psyche is plagued with such a pernicious insolence when it comes to reasoning that is not surprising at all that the majority fail to reason that Petraeus’ report will be damning to the White House no matter what it says.

The Rewards for Military Service Increase

Going to war leaves US soldiers’ kids at risk – health – 31 July 2007 – New Scientist

It seems as if the entire American identity is wrapped in the admirable shroud of World War II. Every military involvement is compared with it, every aspect of American pride derives from it, and every criticism of American foreign policy is refuted with it. It is as if World War II alone was sufficient to place the United States in a state of permanent nobility and, thus, burden her with unspeakable noblesse oblige that began with the Cold War and is now ending with the New World Order.

But this is a grand delusion that is eroding every vital fiber of American society. To expose the delusion, one only needs to compare the horrible fate that meets current American soldiers with the fate of WW II veterans to realize how far the US worldview has deteriorated since World War II. WW II veterans returned to heroes’ welcome, received economic help upon their return, and prospered in the economic boom that resulted from Europe’s destruction.

Since WW II, however, soldiers return to pathetic economic conditions, receive little or no help from the government that conscripted them, and struggle in a competitive economy that is quickly losing ground to resurgent Europe and East Asia. From the dreadful conditions that visited Vietnam veterans (as documented by Oliver Stone and countless others) to the recent scandals at the Walter Reed hospital, the only conclusion supported by the evidence is that the American soldier is not the honorable person he (or she) used to be.

If that were not enough, the above article cites new evidence that the unusual suffering of the soldiers’ families is not relieved in any way by the military, either. The data are fresh, and the military may yet act, but given the military’s inaction in the face of grave problems in the past, the children of soldiers serving in Iraq may continue to suffer inordinately high rates of abuse and neglect until a crisis shames the miliatry into action.

WW II soldiers were heroes, and veterans of all the subsequent wars slaves, in comparison.