Slaying the Hydra

As president Bush's new "surge" security plan for Iraq moves forward and Americans anxiously await signs of real progress in the violence-wracked nation, the question on everyone's mind is: Can the war in Iraq be won? Republican and Democratic partisans, as a rule, eschew any reasoned analysis of the situation in favor of talking-point recitations that support their political interests. Similarly, media opinion makers and televised talking heads seem more interested in political jockeying than clear, truthful analysis.

Even those who honestly set about the task of analyzing the current situation in Iraq find it surprisingly difficult to describe or define the chaotic interplay of sects, ideologies, and cynical political interests that characterizes a region that has been comically -- and quite accurately -- termed "Mess-o-potamia".

Unlike the clearly-defined conflicts of the past (such as World War II), the war in Iraq is a complex tangle of actors and interests with the most elusive of motivations. Even those segments of society most commonly referenced as cohesive groups, such as Iraqi Sunnis, are in fact highly disorganized and dynamic. Regarding Iraqi Sunnis, there are countless divisions between religious moderates and extremists, political collaborators and rejectionists, power-hungry opposing militias, and even al-Qaeda sympathizers.

Iraqi Shiites are no less divided, with various militias and ad hoc political alliances, Iranian connections, compromisers and virulently anti-Sunni groups, and self-interested political elites. Add to this the extensive foreign involvement, from Saudi and Pakistani jihadis to Iranian Revolutionary Guard agents to al-Qaeda elements, and it becomes clear that American forces are fighting not a single enemy or even a handful of enemies, but rather a decentralized jumble of forces that one expert has termed a "bazaar of violence".

One of the primary failures of the Bush administration in executing the war has been an apparent inability to grasp these complexities and their ramifications. Since the U.S. is fighting a totally decentralized, self propagating, constantly growing movement with countless economic, religious, and political dimensions, no number of "decapitation" attacks against insurgent leaders or neighborhood round-ups can halt the growing violence. Even the new counterinsurgency program of General Petraeus, which seeks to integrate political reconciliation with a larger and more aggressive military presence, will be hard-pressed to achieve substantial gains as long as the sources of destabilization and radicalization remain untouched.

Gen. Petraeus has openly stated that there is no military solution to the war in Iraq -- meaning the basis of stability and reconciliation must necessarily spring from political compromise -- however this observation does nothing to make such reconciliation more likely in the face of long-standing historical animosities and intractable political problems.

Since the belligerent parties in Iraq lack the unity and cohesion of more traditional forces, there is little basis for broad, effective political compromise. Even if Sunni and Shiite politicians in Baghdad managed to work out compromises to the country's most pressing political problems, it is unlikely most belligerents would accept these compromises. Since most insurgents in Iraq (with the exception of militias headed by government officials) are not centrally commanded and do not share the ideological and political views of the Iraqi government, Iraqi leaders are utterly incapable of influencing most of the fighting in the territory they nominally rule.

The result of all this is, unsurprisingly, a total lack of trust in an Iraqi government that cannot provide even the most basic security services. The new "surge" plan seeks to address this lack of legitimacy by decreasing violence in the capitol, so that progress can be made toward building effective, trusted Iraqi military and police forces. Once these forces are established, the currently-impotent leaders in the Green Zone will presumably gain legitimacy.

The problem with this plan is that, in a nation as divided as Iraq, the legitimacy-power relation becomes a "chicken or the egg" problem -- without legitimacy, the government cannot muster reliable, strong forces, and without these forces they cannot gain legitimacy. The surge plan aims to supplant American forces for Iraqi forces in order to build a foundation of legitimacy, but the decentralized insurgent hydra has proven resilient even against American firepower.

Saddam Hussein solved the legitimacy-power riddle, and thereby secured power, by substituting fear for legitimacy -- his iron-fisted, bloody policies made his power unquestionable, and thus won him unquestionable power. Obviously, such a strategy is incompatible with the primary goal of the U.S. in Iraq -- the establishment a democratic government. Because of this, American forces and the fledgling Iraqi state have set off into uncharted waters, and are yet to see if the divided, hostile society in Iraq can be bound by democratic institutions.

Thus far, the same fragmentation of the Iraqi populace (into countless warring factions and hostile sects) that hinders analysis has proven insurmountable to Iraqi and American politicians and military forces. Whether or not reconciliation in Baghdad proves attainable in the end, the declarations of politicians from the Green Zone may be incapable of affecting meaningful change. Unfortunately, while the situation in Iraq has no military solution, it also seems to lack a clear political solution.

Responsibility and Infantilizing Society

Anarchist philosopher Peter Kropotkin, in his work "Law and Authority", wrote the following regarding society's tendency to demand legislative action in place of real action:

In existing States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. If the road between two villages is impassable, the peasant says, "There should be a law about parish roads." If a park-keeper takes advantage of the want of spirit in those who follow him with servile obedience and insults one of them, the insulted man says, "There should be a law to enjoin more politeness upon the park-keepers." [..] If the employer lowers wages or increases the hours of labor, the politician in embryo explains, "We must have a law to put all that to rights." In short, a law everywhere and for everything! A law about fashions, a law about mad dogs, a law about virtue, a law to put a stop to all the vices and all the evils which result from human indolence and cowardice.

In short, instead of taking responsibility for our freedom, security, and economic well-being, we call for empty laws that often do nothing to solve the problems we are presented with. Wherever the world is imperfect in our eyes, we delude ourselves into thinking that government action can make everything better.

In the aftermath of the recent mass shooting at Virginia Tech, many Americans are calling for tougher gun laws or other legal responses to the tragedy. In fact, this shooting should have revealed that the state is largely incapable of preventing such violence or responding to it in an effective, timely manner. Of course, the police are now combing through all of the shooter's belongings and records, trying to piece together his motivation. Their investigations, however, do nothing to protect the people or prevent future massacres.

Is it not tragic that the police -- who proudly proclaim their motto as "to serve and protect" -- totally failed to protect these people? This is not to say that the police should have known the shooting would happen, or that our society should be so saturated with police that one is always present in the event of such an attack. The most obvious lesson of this tragedy -- and sadly, one that few seem to be recognizing -- is that by empowering the government at the expense of the people (through gun laws and similar measures) we actually make ourselves less safe, even as we make ourselves less free. There is a constant process of militarization occurring throughout the country, where SWAT teams and heavily-armed police forces blur the line between military and civil defense. Behind cover of the "War on Drugs" and the "War on Terror", our government is coming to view the American population more and more as the enemy -- a process that Americans largely accept because they believe they benefit somehow from this "security".

The constantly-parroted conventional wisdom of the "trade-off" between freedom and security cannot stand up to the realities of the world presented by this and other tragic events. If Americans would open their eyes, they would see that many Americans are held hostage by violence in this same way, where gang violence prevails and innocent people are barred from protecting themselves and their families.

The actions of our government are transforming our society into a population of victims, and yet Americans are still surprised when they are victimized. A person who puts their faith in government can be nothing other than a victim -- whether it is the state that fails them or criminals and murderers who prey on them, a person who has given up responsibility for themselves and their well-being should expect nothing but hardship.

Somewhere along the line, Americans stopped being responsible for themselves and ceded to the state all their political power and social responsibility. Unsurprisingly, the result of this has been the infantilization of our people, who stand up to no intrusion by government, and remain helplessly exposed to the predations of criminals, terrorists, and psychopaths. The proper reaction to a tragedy like that at Virginia Tech is not to demand action by the government or the establishment of new ineffectual laws; it is to begin reversing the trend that has left us so vulnerable in the first place. This means asserting ourselves against the state and empowering ourselves as individuals. This is not only right but necessary, since it is only as empowered individuals, not as subservients of the state, that we can secure our own safety and liberty -- a fact that was made shockingly clear last week at Virginia Tech.

Social Security & Medicare Collapse

Trustees for the Social Security and Medicare trust funds announced Monday that the two programs would run out of money in 2041 and 2019, respectively. The trustees also reported that by 2017, the Social Security program will be giving out more money than it is taking in, resulting in a steadily-increasing deficit that could exhaust the program entirely in less than 35 years. The problems with funding of Medicare are much more serious and immediate, due to increasing health care costs for aging Americans.

The funding problems for the two programs, caused by the impending retirement of about 78 million "baby boomers" born between 1946 and 1964, have been a long time coming, as the government has used excess tax revenues for other projects, rather than saving them in anticipation of future costs.

It is plainly unacceptable that the federal government has cast aside all economic logic and chosen to spend excess revenues that have accumulated for years, rather than saving them in anticipation of future rising costs. Unsurprisingly, the state has once again blithely broken its promise to the American people that their tax money would be used responsibly and for the benefit of the American people. As a result of this total failure of the government, Americans now must choose between depriving baby boomers of the services they believed they were paying for through years of Social Security and Medicare taxes, or the government must substantially raise taxes to make up the lost revenue. Either way, the American people and economy will pay the price for government incompetence.

If a bank took all the funds deposited by its customers and spent them elsewhere, it would of course be incapable of giving these funds back when its customers attempted to withdraw them. Similarly, if an insurance company foolishly spent all of its income from fees, it would be in deep trouble when its customers attempted to file claims. What the government has done in this situation is basically no different from either of these examples -- it has taken money that it promised would be available for one purpose, and spent it elsewhere. Since, unlike corporations and banks, the government is completely unaccountable for its actions, it will simply take more money from the American people to cover up its total failure, or tell them that they simply don't get what they have earned through years of payments.

If a private company attempted to pull a stunt like this, every one of its executives would likely (and rightly) end up in jail. This is a willful violation of contract, plain and simple, but since one party to the contract is the state, the agreement is void simply because the state says it is. Once again, we see that the state is fundamentally criminal and negligent, and that there is no way to hold it responsible for its predations. It is a mystery how anyone claims that the state is a responsible or effective provider of essential services -- whether entitlement programs or even security -- in light of this, and similar, constant failings of the government.

Add this to the list of blatant, massive thefts by the government, maybe right after the trillions of dollars that so conveniently have gone "missing". I'm sure there's no way all this money has made it into the pockets of our beloved "civil servants" in Washington.

Sarkozy vs. Royal

The upcoming French presidential election, which will pit Socialist candidate Segolene Royal against Conservative Nicolas Sarkozy, is shaping up to be a very interesting contest between the socialist status quo (as defended by Royal) and the more right-wing neoliberal reformism of Sarkozy. Unlike the last French presidential election, in which two right-wing candidates (Jacques Chirac and Jean-Marie Le Pen) made it to the last round, this year's election results could swing the troubled nation in two very different directions.

Arguably the two primary issues in the election involve France's economic and social situation. France's economy has been stagnant for some time now, with high unemployment and slow growth. Sarkozy claims that these economic problems are caused by France's extensive socialist economic programs, such as the 35-hour work week, high minimum wage laws, welfare-state programs, and strong unions. Sarkozy aims to liberalize the French economy and spur economic growth by removing restrictions on labor, lowering taxes and decreasing state economic interventionism.

On the other hand, Royal seeks essentially to maintain and expand the current pro-labor, pro-regulation and socialist programs that Sarkozy claims are weighing down the economy. Royal's proposed reforms include attempts to stimulate demand through minimum wage increases and expansion of government assistance programs.

Closely tied to these economic issues is the volatile social situation in France, which has turned explosive more than once in the recent past. The nation's poverty-stricken banlieues -- poor, largely immigrant-populated suburbs of major French cities -- are home to high unemployment, high crime rates, social and religious tension, and a number of other modern urban social and economic plagues. Royal, who is largely pro-immigrant, would seek to pacify these neighborhoods with the above-mentioned economic reforms, and has emphasized tolerance along with the need for law and order.

Sarkozy, on the other hand, has taken a much harder line against immigration, and has promised a strong response to the "scum" of the banlieues. He seeks to economically eliminate the unemployment and poverty that produces delinquency and criminal behavior through free-market reforms, while concurrently emphasizing strong police action and forceful response to criminality and rioting.

Generally speaking, the choice being presented to the French people is not unlike that so common in American elections -- it is between the paternal and maternal systems of government. In another sense, however, the picture is opposite that in America, where liberal Democrats have struggled to win support for more socialist programs. In France, vast socialist programs and high tax rates are the norm, while conservative reformers are struggling to dismantle this system, which they view as a weight on the economy. As has been noted by other commentators, Royal (as the defender of the existing system) is the real "conservative" in this race, while Sarkozy presents a new alternative to the established leftist systems.

While Sarkozy's economic programs are certainly preferable to any libertarian, his paternalism and tough-guy stance could mean trouble for civil rights and be dangerous in the foreign policy arena. Furthermore, Sarkozy's anti-immigrant rhetoric -- which has appealed to supporters of far-right Le Pen -- could be troubling to some libertarians. Sadly, neither candidate has shown a strong commitment to liberty. Whether it is Sarkozy's militarism and police-statism or Royal's mommy-knows-best socialism, the French people are left without a truly pro-freedom candidate. Furthermore, Sarkozy's promises to shrink government and lower taxes should be taken with a grain of salt -- such promises are rarely kept, and the state is notoriously hard to shrink.

Once again, this unfortunate lack of representation of libertarian ideas -- and the limited choice between welfare and warfare statism -- should be recognizable to American libertarians.

Wolfowitz at the World Bank

Paul Wolfowitz, the Bush-appointed World Bank president and former architect of the invasion of Iraq, is in trouble at the World Bank over dealings surrounding his girlfriend, Shaha Riza. When Wolfowitz became president at the Bank, conflicts of interest forced Riza to leave, however Wolfowitz secured for her a cushy State Department job making over $190,000 a year -- more than the Secretary of State.

In an already-unfriendly environment -- Wolfowitz's involvement with the invasion of Iraq and his political ties earned him more than a few enemies in the Bank -- this apparently unethical behavior has led to an explosion of criticism from Bank employees, with some even openly jeering Wolfowitz at the World Bank. It seems increasingly likely that Wolfowitz may fall prey to his own hard-line stance of "zero tolerance" for corruption among Bank employees -- a policy which has already led to the forced resignations of a number of Bank employees over conflict-of-interest charges.

Wolfowitz's critics claim that his actions have undermined confidence in the Bank and have endangered its reputation. Critics have also called Wolfowitz intellectually arrogant, and have expressed unease at his unwillingness to accept the expertise of others in the institution when it runs afoul of his own estimations. Considering Wolfowitz's wildly inaccurate predictions regarding the Iraq war (Iraqi oil would totally finance the war, the war would be quick and easy, etc), which he stated as incontestable fact in the lead-up to the war, this would not be the first time Wolfowitz's honesty and intellectual capacity were called into question.

More at FinancialExpress.com

Gonzales' Lies and Possible Criminal Coverup?

Politburo Diktat has an excellent series of blog posts on the increasingly suspicious revelations surrounding Attorney General Gonzales and his role in the U.S. Attorney firing debacle.

There's a lot there, and I don't think there's much I can add. In summary, the longer this goes on, the more evidence seems to indicate that: 1) Gonzales has lied on many occasions about his role in the firings. 2) Most of the firings were very much politically motivated, and had nothing to do with performance issues. 3) While there is no hard evidence that illegal activity occurred (i.e. that the attorneys were fired because they didn't attack Democrats, or the attorneys were pressured by White House officials to attack Democrats), there is a lot of circumstantial evidence pointing in that direction, so the issue merits closer investigation.

Here are the links (most recent at bottom):

DOJ Document Dump
Kyle Sampson's Testimony
Hitting The Panic Button
Report: Domenici Talked To Bush About Iglesias
Battle Contradicts Gonzales' Testimony
The Priorities of The New U.S. Attorneys
Gonzales Contradicts His Own Testimony

Jose Padilla's Mental Health

Apparently Jose Padilla, the American citizen who was detained by the Bush administration for more than 3 years without being charged with a crime or having access to courts, is suffering from some serious mental health problems that resulted from his prolonged detention. A psychiatrist that analyzed Padilla said that he was anxious, sweating, had facial tics, and had dilated pupils. Padilla was also exhibiting symptoms of Stockholm Syndrome, a condition usually exhibited by hostages in which captives defend their captors.

It is notable that those seemingly suffering from Stockholm Syndrome have usually been exposed to very harsh treatment, possibly including torture. Padilla's lawyers claim that he was "subjected to sleep deprivation, extreme heat and cold, threats of execution, exposure to noxious fumes, and was forced to wear a hood and stand in one position for extended periods of time." They also claim that he was given either PCP or LSD in the form of a "truth serum". These highly stressful and physically harsh conditions, along with the alleged drugging with strong psychedelics -- could go a long way in explaining his current mental problems.

Of course apologists for Bush's illegal detention program will claim that Padilla's mental problems are fabricated or have nothing to do with his treatment while in detention. It should be evident to any honest observer that this sort of illegal detention is prohibited precisely because of the horrors that a person can endure while deprived of all legal rights in the way Padilla was.

It is also quite revealing that the charges eventually brought against Padilla -- "conspiracy to murder, kidnap and maim persons outside the United States" -- flatly contradicts the initial justification for his detention. When he was first detained, the Bush administration claimed that they had solid evidence that he was part of a plot to detonate a "dirty" radiological bomb within the U.S. Now, their story has completely changed.

Besides exhibiting again precisely why a person should never be detained without being charged with a specific crime, this total change in allegation is extremely suspicious. What happened to this "evidence" of the dirty bomb plot? What reason do we have to believe that the current charges aren't completely fabricated, just like the initial charge appears to have been? This is the most shocking display of government abuse and illegality in quite a while, and the fact that it isn't getting more press or causing more outrage in the U.S. is very sad and worrisome.

What a Waste...

Over at the Mises Economics Blog, Anthony Gregory wishes (as I'm sure we all do) that the U.S. government, instead of wasting so much money on the failed/destructive welfare-warfare state, had invested all its tax revenues into... making a dragon. A real, living, breathing dragon. Not only is he right, he is now officially a genius:

My friend, not exactly a libertarian but not a socialist (pro-market, anti-war, anti-cop) — okay, pretty libertarian, actually — thinks that if the US government, for the last 40 years, had spent nothing on war or welfare or anything else, but retained the same tax schedules, it would have been able to fund the creation of a dragon.

Yes, a dragon. As in a large flying nearly reptilian beast that breathes fire.

Aside from some limits of socialist calculation, he has a point. Maybe even with government inefficiency taken for granted, he might be onto something.

The genetic and mechanical engineering and research could have been advanced if, starting with the moon landing, the feds ditched all other endeavors and focused on creating a dragon.

What do you think? For trillions of bucks in today's dollars, could we have a dragon? I think so.

Would it be a more libertarian expenditure than most things the government spends money on? Surely.

Would it be a _cooler_ thing to spend money on than what the government has spent money on instead? Most certainly.

My friend, I believe, has stumbled upon a brilliant insight that would make Bastiat proud. For all this welfare-warfare spending, the feds could have made a dragon by now. The unseen cost of socialism and militarism in the American experience has been a dragon.

With a dragon, no country would mess with us, because we have a dragon.

We would again be the envy of the world.

I think the Islamo-fascists would have to agree, even, that there must be something to the American way of life that we could produce a dragon whereas all their jihadist war prayers and theocratic socialism continue to yield nothing so spectacular.

Iraqi Parliament Bombed

A group of militant Islamists affiliated with al Qaeda has claimed responsibility for the bombing of the Iraqi parliament cafeteria within the Baghdad Green Zone. While initial reports indicated 8 killed and 23 wounded, it appears now that only one Iraqi PM has been confirmed killed, with 22 others wounded..

In terms of the number of casualties, this attack was relatively small compared to other recent bombings, however the New York Times article linked above captures the effect this attack will likely have on the Iraqi people:

At a time when Iraqis are increasingly questioning the government’s ability to protect them, the bombing raised the troubling possibility that it could not even fully protect itself, although the zone is at the wellspring of American and Iraqi military power in the city.

This serious breach of security will likely call into question the effectiveness of the new "surge" security plan in the minds of Iraqis. This reality underscores the difficult position U.S. forces and the Iraqi government are in -- no matter what gains they may make in securing areas of Iraq, it is virtually impossible to stop all attacks, and in many cases, one strategic suicide bombing can seem to undo weeks of hard work. It is of course much harder to maintain peace than it is to foment violence and chaos, and this is exactly how Iraqi insurgents have managed to halt progress throughout the country.

While such an attack was in a sense bound to happen eventually, that doesn't change the symbolic value it could have as a representation of the failure of the Iraqi government to provide the most basic service of security for Iraqis. Just as the attack symbolizes the broader failures of the Iraqi government, it also shows how politically savvy the terrorist and insurgent groups in Iraq have become.

Anarchist Common Property

I just stumbled upon an excellent essay at Anti-State.com by Carlton Hobbs, titled Common Property in Free Market Anarchism, which puts together a conception of the treatment of property which is neither state property (as is usually meant by "public" or "common" property) nor strictly private property. This addresses the issue of objects, resources, or land which are used by a number of people and not owned by any of them privately. By extension, this deals with the "Tragedy of the Commons" and the reality that things often do not cleanly fall into the category of "private" or "public" property.

The conception arrived at by Hobbs is that, rather than the common categories of "private" and "public" property, there should be three categories: "unowned", "excludable", and "unexcludable". The idea behind this is that with something like a path, which is used by a number of people, no single user of the path can claim exclusive rights of access, and so ownership of the path is, in a sense, shared by all those who use the path. Therefore it would be illegitimate for one person to claim the path as his own and attempt to exclude other people from using it or crossing it.

If someone did want to block the path, claim a section of it as their own, or otherwise compromise its usefulness, they could not treat the property as "unowned" -- they would have to secure the consent of the community that uses it. At the same time, the path is not "excludable" -- it can be used by a number of people, which differentiates it from "private" property in the conventional sense, which is "excludable". In this sense, each person who uses it partially owns the path, and no single person has the right to transfer ownership of it or exercise any of the rights that one can with "excludable" property.

Hobbs goes into much more detail, and considers situations where scarcity becomes an issue, how pollution would be treated in this system, and many other details. All in all, the essay is very good and provides a good start to a commonsense theory of how various kinds of property could be treated in an anarchist society.

A final note: I found it very interesting how Hobbs' application of the idea of use-as-ownership worked out so naturally. This of course is very similar to Proudhon's "mutualist" idea of property being defined by occupancy and use. The way Proudhon's relatively "leftist" conception of property (which I have always found interesting and largely valid) and Hobbs' free market conception seem to converge is especially interesting.

For those not familiar with Proudhon's ideas of property and possession, you can check out his Wikipedia page or his most important work on the subject, What Is Property?.

Immigration Economics

In an article for National Review Online, editor Rich Lowry recites a popular anti-immigration talking point, claiming that the influx of immigrants into the U.S. hurts "native" workers by depressing wages. While the idea that an increase in the supply of labor will decrease wages is sound economically, this application of the idea by immigration opponents is odd, and fails to account for many other effects of immigration.

The problem with this talking point is that economists widely agree that the continued growth of the American economy (as opposed to the stagnation seen in Europe) is in large part due to population growth driven by immigration. Where European countries are seeing population declines and are suffering from low economic growth, the American economy has fared rather well in comparison.

If the wishes of these immigration opponents were realized and immigration was severely restricted, a number of essential industries (service, construction, etc) would be very hard hit, and the economy as a whole would suffer. As I said above, it is true that increases in labor supply lead to wage decreases. What is being ignored by these anti-immigration pundits is that the short-term wage decrease following population influx is overwhelmed by a number of positive effects.

Such influxes of labor and temporary wage decreases result in more (and more efficient) production, an increase in the standard of living for everyone, and the strengthening of the economy as a whole. Furthermore, as these industries grow, more jobs are produced and wages actually increase again. The long-term effect of this is that more people have jobs, more services and products are available (for less cost) for everyone, and the American economy remains competitive internationally, unlike so many European economies who are suffering.

Since labor behaves economically in the same manner as other resources, the situation can be understood more fully by substituting another resource for labor. Imagine that Mexico had far more candy bars than they could use, and the U.S. didn't have enough candy bars but had a huge number of people who wanted candy bars. It would of course improve everyone's standard of living if the candy bars were able to freely move across the border to meet the demand of the people in the U.S. This would also help the Mexicans since they could trade their candy bars that they didn't need for things that they needed more.

In the same sense, the oversupply of labor in Mexico and the demand for labor in the U.S. could be reconciled by allowing freer movement of job seekers across the border. The result of this would be mutually beneficial -- Americans could make use of needed Mexican manpower, while Mexican workers could work and improve their standard of living, instead of remaining poor and unemployed in Mexico.

This is exactly why so many industries are lobbying against strict immigration controls. Keeping Mexican workers out of the country hurts the U.S. economy just as it hurts un- or under-employed Mexican workers. Restricting movement of people from place to place serves only to create economic inequalities, prevent economic growth, and increase suffering. The influx of immigrants into the U.S. is a natural economic process -- there are more jobs in the U.S. than in Mexico, so people naturally move to resolve this inequality.

The shallow economic observations of Lowry and anti-immigration pundits willfully neglect to recognize the overwhelming benefits of free movement of labor. Exactly why they so quickly cast aside their usual support of laissez-faire markets is anyone's guess, but they seem more than willing to twist the truth to justify their opposition to any non-European immigration. The next time you hear the classic nativist arguments that immigrants are "taking our jobs" or "lowering our wages", feel free to educate them regarding the great economic benefits of immigration.

Oh, Let the Drug Users Die

New Mexico just passed a law granting immunity from drug charges for those who seek medical help for overdoses. This law -- the first of its kind in the nation -- was passed amidst an "epidemic" of drug fatalities in New Mexico.

While this is certainly a move in the right direction, it is both astounding and morally reprehensible that every other state in the U.S. actually does prosecute people seeking such help. To be clear, these people have deprived no one of anything, have violated no one's rights, and are being scared away from seeking much-needed help simply because the state has deemed in unacceptable for them to consume certain chemicals. No doubt there have been more than a few people who have died alone and afraid for fear of being locked up with murderers and rapists if they sought help.

It is far past time for the American people to overcome their ignorant, uninformed hyper-intolerance of drugs and drug users. The pathetic "War on Drugs" has filled our jails with nonviolent drug "offenders" who have harmed no one; it has led to massive corruption and overreach in government; it has wasted unimaginable amounts of our taxpayer dollars; it has spawned horrific crime and gang violence in our cities; it has turned every law-abiding American into a "suspect".

And for all this, drugs are cheaper and more readily available than ever before. This "war" is nothing more than the empty moral posing of politicians and the sadistic intolerance of the people. It achieves nothing and hurts innocent people -- it is flat-out stupid. The good news is that more and more Americans are realizing the utter failure of this "war", and are calling for more freedom. Let's hope this is only the beginning of a much greater trend.

Freeman Dyson on Global Warming

In the past here, I have written of many widespread criticisms of global warming by non-scientists, which I view as largely unhelpful and illegitimate. While I maintain that the uninformed opinions of so many pundits and politically-motivated, self-styled "experts" do not contribute to the debate over global warming, I do not want to give the impression that I do not take reasoned, useful criticisms seriously.

In this spirit, here are some well-thought, reasonable, and scientifically sound criticisms of the prevailing conception of global warming, by renowned physicist and mathematician Freeman Dyson. While Dyson is not primarily a climatologist, his extensive knowledge of physics and other scientific disciplines that contribute to climatology make his thoughts particularly relevant (from Wikipedia):

Dyson has questioned the predictive value of current computational models of climate change, urging instead more extensive use of local observations. He considers this view to be "heretical", along with his views on the PhD system.

The good news is that we are at last putting serious effort and money into local observations. Local observations are laborious and slow, but they are essential if we are ever to have an accurate picture of climate. The bad news is that the climate models on which so much effort is expended are unreliable because they still use fudge-factors rather than physics to represent important things like evaporation and convection, clouds and rainfall. Besides the general prevalence of fudge-factors, the latest and biggest climate models have other defects that make them unreliable. With one exception, they do not predict the existence of El Niño. Since El Niño is a major feature of the observed climate, any model that fails to predict it is clearly deficient. The bad news does not mean that climate models are worthless. They are, as Manabe said thirty years ago, essential tools for understanding climate. They are not yet adequate tools for predicting climate.^[14]

While he acknowledges climate change may be in part due to anthropogenic causes, such as the burning of fossil fuels, he regards the term "global warming" as a misnomer:

As a result of the burning of coal and oil, the driving of cars, and other human activities, the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing at a rate of about half a percent per year. … The physical effects of carbon dioxide are seen in changes of rainfall, cloudiness, wind strength, and temperature, which are customarily lumped together in the misleading phrase "global warming." This phrase is misleading because the warming caused by the greenhouse effect of increased carbon dioxide is not evenly distributed. In humid air, the effect of carbon dioxide on the transport of heat by radiation is less important, because it is outweighed by the much larger greenhouse effect of water vapor. The effect of carbon dioxide is more important where the air is dry, and air is usually dry only where it is cold. The warming mainly occurs where air is cold and dry, mainly in the arctic rather than in the tropics, mainly in winter rather than in summer, and mainly at night rather than in daytime. The warming is real, but it is mostly making cold places warmer rather than making hot places hotter. To represent this local warming by a global average is misleading, because the global average is only a fraction of a degree while the local warming at high latitudes is much larger.^[15]

Regarding political efforts to reduce the causes of climate change, Dyson argues that other global problems should take priority.

I'm not saying the warming doesn't cause problems, obviously it does. Obviously we should be trying to understand it. I'm saying that the problems are being grossly exaggerated. They take away money and attention from other problems that are much more urgent and important. Poverty, infectious diseases, public education and public health. Not to mention the preservation of living creatures on land and in the oceans.^[16]

These thoughts, especially those regarding the distribution of the the effects of global warming and the limitations of our climate modeling capabilities, are very relevant to our efforts to understand our world. Furthermore, Dyson's points show that global warming is, like all scientific predictions and possibly to a greater extent than most, far from being a well-established and definite phenomenon.

Dyson does not close-mindedly deny that climate changes are occurring within our world, and that these changes could have widespread effects. What he does do, however, is approach the task of understanding of these changes with a healthy regard for both the strengths and limitations of our current knowledge. Let Dyson serve as a model for those who seek to approach this issue fairly, rationally, and with regard for the truth rather than political convenience.

British-Iranian Tensions Ease

Almost 2 weeks after the capture of 15 British sailors by the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, tensions between the two countries appear to be lessening. Still, while British Prime Minister Tony Blair has called for “peaceful and calm negotiation”, he has also warned that if a quick diplomatic solution is not forthcoming, Britain would “take an increasingly tougher position”.

In response to a suggestion by Iranian negotiator Ali Larijani of bilateral talks, Blair said that “the door is open” to a diplomatic solution. Larijani also told a British news service that the Iranian government had decided that “there is no need for any trial” – a reversal of earlier statements by Iran expressing an intention to try the British sailors for espionage.

Given the already-tense situation between the West and Iran – with the U.S. pushing for more severe treatment over the Iranian nuclear programs and allegations by Washington that the Iranian government is supporting the insurgency in Iraq – it appears both British and Iranian leaders are looking to defuse a potentially dangerous situation.

Across the Atlantic, however, the Bush administration has not ruled out the possibility of military strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities. While only time will tell whether American or Israeli forces will risk an attack on Iran, at least for the short term peace seems likely to prevail.

Insurgency In Somalia and the Iraqi Breeding Ground

The vast majority of the time, I have nothing good to say about David Horowitz's FrontPageMag.com, however I just came across a pretty good analysis there of the increasingly violent situation in Somalia by Steve Schippert.

Reading this article, I was struck by a few similarities between the situation in Iraq and the growing violence in Mogadishu. While the two conflicts are obviously different in many ways, the tactics adopted by the al-Qaeda backed Islamic Courts Union (ICU) are very similar to those used by insurgents in Iraq. Among these tactics are the use of suicide car bombers and scattered attacks on government forces. In keeping with asymmetric warfare doctrine, the ICU is launching attacks throughout Mogadishu and the surrounding area in a relatively random fashion, which heightens perceptions of the violence as omnipresent.

Schippert also points out that the ICU is making use of expertise brought by "...seasoned and well-trained al-Qaeda terrorists from Indonesia, Pakistan and elsewhere." While not surprising on a hawkish site like FrontPageMag.com, the exclusion of Iraq as a source of "seasoned and well-trained" insurgents is definitely notable. Bush supporters have no difficulty recognizing that every other similar conflict throughout the globe provides an excellent means for terrorists to improve their tactics, technology, expertise, and recruitment. When it comes to Iraq, however, they all seem to be in denial of the important role played by the war in the development of militant Islamic extremism throughout the globe.

As I have said in the past, the conflict in Iraq not only draws terrorists from all over the world to fight against American forces (as recognized by proponents of the war), it also serves as a proving ground, networking hub and launching point for terrorist activities both in Iraq and throughout the world. In this respect Iraq is very similar to the conflict in Afghanistan (in the 1980s) between invading Soviet forces and U.S.-backed Islamist mujahideen, the predecessors and founders of al-Qaeda.

Both the Bush administration and countless war supporters have said that the conflict in Iraq lessens the chances of an attack on American soil because it occupies terrorists abroad and also kills many of those who would attack American civilians. While it is certainly true that many violent extremists are killed in Iraq, it is equally important to recognize that the war very likely results in a net increase in extremists -- extremists who are among the most experienced, dedicated, and skilled in the world.

More Nonsense at Captain's Quarters

Ed Morrissey is at it again over at Captain's Quarters, talking about the Democrats' intention to officially recognize the Armenian Genocide as, well, a genocide. Whether because he realized how stupid his earlier points were, or simply in an attempt to make the Democrats look even worse, Morrissey has decided to grossly distort the issue this time around.

Morrissey claims that the Democrats are inaccurately condemning Turkey for the genocide, since the genocide occurred under the Ottoman Empire, before the formation of the nation of Turkey. He goes on to say that this blaming of Turkey shows "historical illiteracy". First it should be noted that the genocide was carried out mostly by the Young Turks -- the ideological and political predecessors of the Turkish nationalist movement. Even if we assume that the modern state of Turkey had no hand in the genocide, the problem with this claim is that no one is saying that Turkey did anything. The only thing the Democrats are voting on is the recognition of the event as a genocide; Turkey has decided to take offense only because the Turkish government denies that a genocide ever occurred, not because the Democrats are blaming them.

His continued push to suppress this recognition of the genocide, despite his statement that he personally believes that what occurred was a genocide, betrays an exceptionally shallow, cynical political opportunism. It seems Morrissey saw an opportunity to smear Democrats and decided to ignore the moral imperative to recognize the crime that occurred in the genocide. Even if Morrissey was not motivated by a desire to smear Democrats, it is pretty sad that he would choose to silence those seeking to recognize the genocide simply to avoid making Turkey angry. Just as denial of the Holocaust is indefensible under any circumstances, political expediency is no excuse for suppressing the truth of what happened in the Armenian Genocide.

UPDATE: I do realize that in my last post on the topic I said that Turkey was responsible for the genocide. This was somewhat lazy and inaccurate on my part, as Turkey did not exist as an independent nation at the time. What I meant was that the government and people of that same region -- the Ottoman Empire and the Young Turks -- were responsible, but the way I said it was not entirely accurate.

My failure to be more clear, however, does not change the fact that the Democrats' proposed bill does not blame Turkey, but merely recognizes the slaughter as a historical fact and (rightfully) labels it as a genocide. There is nothing in the bill specifically claiming that the Turkish government was responsible, so Morrissey's label of the Democrats as "historically illiterate" is still baseless. While I in no way identify myself with the Democratic party, nor do I support a lot of their ideas, I have no problem recognizing when they do a good thing. If only Morrissey and other pundits like him were capable of similar honesty...