Author: das monde

It is an amazing evolution. First they say that no global warming exists, that the issue must be ignored. Then they ridicule concerns about global warming. Then they fight the science with all political and industrial means. Then they say that global warming exists, but it is not human fault. Then they say our civilization does warm the planet, but now the warming is so strong that we can’t do anything against. Guess what they say now?

You know Mr Patrick Michaels, the Professor Climatologist of the Cato Institute, right? Together with Bjorn Lomborg and MIT’s Richard Lindzen, he is one of the most influential climate change skeptics.

Two months ago, the next day after Katrina hit New Orleans, Patrick Michaels said this:

Two highest category hurricanes in two months later, the conservative NRO website has an article discussing feasibility of controlling hurricanes. They asked Michaels for a judgment as well. (Emphasis mine)

No kidding. From “we can’t do anything” to “we can do anything we want” in two blinks. “Anybody who has thought about this” knows, Michaels realized last week. “It’s time to debate“, global warming as well?! Could we really develop that climate technology, or not quite that easily? Or perhaps genuine respect for Mother Nature is the best technology we can have?

P.S. Kudos to Mahatma Gandhi’s quote: “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.“

P.P.S. Crossposted at European Tribune and DailyKos.

Amidst the terrible news from Pakistan, there are other remarkable stories. I wish to bring attention to the following two articles from the NY Times of October 10th.

As Polar Ice Turns to Water, Dreams of Treasure Abound

Bush’s Veil Over History

The first article considers environmental and economical implications of the Arctic ice cap melting. This issue was touched at European Tribune a few times.

The second article is written by Kitty Kelley, the author of the book “The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty.” It is about the Executive Order 13233, signed by George W. Bush on November 1st, 2001.
The melting Arctic ice cap may offer striking opportunities: drastically shorter shipping routes, new oil fields and other natural resourses, new fisheries and tourist destinations. The meltic ice cap would also mean new troubles, in particular – border disputes.

Sheila Watt-Cloutier, the leader of a transnational Inuit group, put it this way:

As long as it’s ice, nobody cares except us, because we hunt and fish and travel on that ice. However, the minute it starts to thaw and becomes water, then the whole world is interested.

Signs of world’s interest are indeed getting abound. New research stations and icebreakers, port investments, development of natural gas fields, colloboration and disputes, interest from China and India… The Northwest passage between Europe and Asia atop Canada can be expected within 20 years with the present rate fo global warming. The Pentagon assesses viability of its weapons and navigational systems in the north. The lengthy NY Times article describes many aspects well.

Kitty Kelley’s article describes a lucid expression of the secretive character of Bush’s administration. The little known Executive Order 13233 allows a release of private papers of a former president only with the approval of both that former president (or his heirs) and the current one. Before the Executive Order, all papers, except those pertaining to national security, had to be made available 12 years after a president left office. Bush did the paperwork just in time to protect Reagan’s papers. Bill Clinton objected the order and wanted his files open, but the Bush administration denies the access. The Order can be reversed by a future president, Congress’ legislation or court’s decision.

Unless one of these efforts succeeds, George W. Bush and his father can see to it that their administrations pass into history without examination. Their rationales for waging wars in the Middle East will go unchallenged. There will be no chance to weigh the arguments that led the administration to condone torture by our armed forces. The problems of federal agencies entrusted with public welfare during times of national disaster – 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina – will be unaddressed. Details on no-bid contracts awarded to politically connected corporations like Halliburton will escape scrutiny, as will the president’s role in Environmental Protection Agency’s policies on water and air polluters.

[Crossposted at European Tribune.]

This is a phantasmagoric srew-up by FEMA, mind-boggling.

Stumbling Storm-Aid Effort Put Tons of Ice on Trips to Nowhere

What to say?! Is this supposed to be normal?

The Economist put it very kindly last week:

[NOTE: Crossposted at DailyKos.]

This is a business proposal, may it be immodest. I tried to patent the idea, but I don’t have patience and experience. So I decided to post it in the “open source” fashion.

Importance of reliable counting of electoral votes is obvious from recent debacles in the United States and Ukraine. Many think that only paper ballot voting can be reliable, but my proposal seems to be not only faster and more accurate, but also more reliable and tamper-proof than paper ballot voting.

I propose to use magnetic cards for electoral voting as follows. Each vote has to be registered on a magnetic card in two ways: it has to be recorded in the magnetic strip, and it has to be printed out on a side of the magnetic card.

The voter can check his vote by inspecting the printed record. The final tally should rely on the printed records. Magnetic records are to be used for assisting the count.

Below the fold I describe essential features of the method. A more thorough description can be read here; it also presents back-up possibilities and flexible variantions.
A. Magnetic cards

Magnetic cards with printed records are used in transportation systems in some US cities, Japan, Belgium and probably many other places.

The main advantage of magnetic cards is that they are easy to handle by manual and automatic means.

There exists a patent for a voting system where magnetic cards with printed records are used. That patent suggests use of magnetic records for counting, whereas printed records are to be used for verification (if later required). That patent should not apply to voting systems where election results rely specifically on counting printed records.

As much as I know, magnetic cards with verifiable printed records on themselves were not used in elections yet.

B. The voting procedure

The voting procedure may look very usual.

First, a voter should be authenticated by election officials, and receive a magnetic card from them. One side of the card may contain official logos and instructions for voting. Other side of the card is for printing the vote(s).

Secondly, the voter goes into a voting booth, where a touch screen (or a computer, or a screen with a mouse or a light pen, etc.) and a magnetic card reader/writer are available. The voter makes his choice electronically and confirms them on the screen. The choice is recorded on the magnetic strip of the card, and printed out on the available side of the card. Then the card is ejected; the voter should check the printed form.

The most important requirement is that the printed form would be well-readable. Quality and correctness of the magnetic record is desirable chiefly for having a smooth counting process. There is no essential need for strict protection of magnetic records. Magnetic records may even be corrected later without objections.

Lastly (after leaving the booth with desired vote), the voter should insert the card into the voting urn and leave the voting area. The voting urn should be able to detect wrong cards and insertion of stacked cards. For convenience, the cards may be immediately stacked into special containers. As a rule of thumb, no one should be allowed to leave the voting area without submitting a card.

C. The counting procedure

This is the essential new contribution. For simplicity, we assume here that the magnetic cards record votes for one nomination. For variations and back-up possibilities, see the more thorough description.

In principle, the count of submitted votes can be done in three steps:

1. Sorting the cards by magnetic records, so that cards with the same vote are stacked together.
2. Checking the sorted stacks by visually inspecting printed forms.
3. Counting stacks of cards with the same vote.

These three steps can be done with assistance of different machines. I do not specify their construction, but note that structure of assisting machines does not have to be complicated. Magnetic records have to be read only by sorting machines. Assisting machines for checking and counting can be purely mechanical in principle. There is no need for associating a computer or ample memory device with these machines. Their interior can be mechanically simple, so that election officials with common knowledge of mechanical devices could reliably inspect them.

Magnetic cards can be transported between different machines in special containers or container frames, so to minimize human manipulation. It is acceptable to touch or inspect cards in a container frame, but it should be impossible to take any cards out. Most care should be taken that cards would not be spread (accidentally or possibly intentionally) over the floor.

The sorting machine should have at least 3 compartments for sorted cards (at least 2 for major candidates, and 1 for other). The compartments do not have to be of equal capacity. Manufacturers should foresee the possibility of overflow of cards with the same vote. If there is a compartment with different votes, those votes may be sorted in other run or handled manually.

Checking the sorted votes is most likely the most time consuming part of the process. Suppose that a stack of cards with votes for candidate X is being checked. It is most convenient if the printed name of X is supposed to appear at the same position on each card. Then a mechanical device can assist counting by putting each card from the sorted stack in front of eyes of a counting person for about a second. A light marker may highlight the position for the name of X. In this way the counting person does not have to concentrate on the flow of cards, he/she should just follow continuous appearance of the name of X at the highlighted position. If a wrong name occurs in the highlighted position, the assisting machine should be stopped and the wrong card should be manually examined. These stops are supposed to occur rarely.

Probably, the described checking process can be speeded up so that each card is shown just for a fraction of a second, if other possible names in the place of X are visibly different. (If there are candidates with similar names, their names may artificially be printed with different fonts or at perceivably different position, etc.) The light marker may be momentarily and synchronically switched off and on while the card under view is being replaced by the next one, so that the highlighted name of X would appear continuously as long as there are no erroneous cards. If there is an error, the checking person(s) should notice the momentarily change of the printed record. Then the last few displayed cards should be checked. Officials should test human alertness and adjust the speed of the assisting machine beforehand.

Once all sorted votes for the same nomination are checked and sorting errors are rectified, stacks with the same votes should be counted. Counting persons or devices do not need to know what choice is recorded on the cards of a stack offered to them. One way to count the checked cards handily is to load them into container frames of fixed capacity (say, 100). Then counting persons have just to check whether those container frames are filled properly, and to count the container frames. Partially filled container frames should be taken into consideration. If container frames can be firmly stacked in a rectangular fashion, they can be counted by using mathematical multiplication.

It may be acceptable to trust the count of cards with the same vote to a simple mechanical device, reminiscent to a money counting machine. In this way, the only human involvement in the whole process is checking sorted cards.

D. Conclusions

The proposed voting method is fast and reliable, perhaps more reliable than any other known method. Just as with paper ballot voting, votes have physical form, and voters are ensured that their intended votes are counted. The advantage is that cards are easier to handle manually and automatically. There are many ways to assist the human count by simple machines. Each step and the whole procedure can be carefully specified, to avoid ambiguous handling and abuse of authority.  

The proposed method avoids highly criticized drawbacks of purely electronic voting, such as the uncertainty whether voter’s choice is properly recorded and manipulated. There is no need for checking potentially ambiguous software code, to distrust manufacturers and vendors of voting machines, or to suspect hacking. Correctness of electronic manipulations (by the voting machine in the booth and sorting machinery) is not essential; it is desirable only to ensure smooth counting process. The method does not require rather awkward paper trails. Accurate results can be highly expected.

The sorting, checking and counting machines may involve marginal amount of electronics, and they can have simple and unambiguous mechanics. The voting method offers favorite conditions for multisided observation. Direct human touch can be greatly minimized; is necessary only for dealing with wrongly sorted cards.  Partisan manipulation of votes should be very difficult.

There should be big political interest to implement this method. This may offer big commercial opportunities for manufacturers of voting machines and magnetic cards (and machines dealing with cards). I would be very interested if anyone would try to implement the method, or build equipment for it.

This is the cover of the October issue of The American Enterprise journal. Obviously, the main topic is Red America vs Blue Europe. A not-so-subtle insinuation is that the Red Conservatives triumphed in the USA, however narrowly and controversially the Bush elections were decided, and now it is time for a standoff between rightly Red America and lefty Blue Europe. You just look at the titles of feature articles on the online version to erase all doubts about partiality of contributions. It looks like an invitation for a crusade.

In particular, the journal apparently includes Mathias Doepfner’s European “cowardice” drivel. Here I comment the articles of Karl Zinsmeister and Olaf Gersemann, available online. I will review and freely quote them.
Surely, they have to address deep differences between America and Europe before assessing imposition of the conservative American model upon Europe. One obvious issue is the legendary anti-Americanism of Europeans. Evidently, TAE see it as persistent manifestation of European jealousy and resentment, independent of America’s stand. Anti-Americanism certainly didn’t begin on Bush’s watch, and it won’t end any time soon, as you can read in the summary of feature articles.

They try to assign anti-Americanism and stubborn ideology to European “elites”;, but they easily run into self-contradictions. For example, Zinsmeister states that nearly one third of young Germans say that the US government ordered the 9/11 attacks, that many Europeans name the US as the biggest threat to world peace (as often as North Korea and Iran, 53 percent). Yet, with the next breath he says that this anti-Americanism is most virulent among Europe’s elites, that ordinary Europeans tend to be more appreciative of American culture and economy. When he talks about policies that would not survive the test of popular opinion, he gives examples of “majority supported” ideas like direct election of mayors or the death penalty, blocked by authorities.

They say Europe brims with bright, well-raised people, potent corporations, and an elaborate physical infrastructure, but then it is disappointing that few Europeans tend to accept the verdicts of “recent economic history”, many simply refuse to consider any dramatic alteration of ingrained welfare-state habits. So only neo-conservative elites from Washington can help Europeans to deal with depressing resistance to reality and deep zero-sum mentality (?!).

Predictably, the authors bemoan that Gerhard Schroeder got into trouble for “wrong reasons”, just as the French (and the Dutch) rejected the EU constitution not because economy is too centralized and manipulated but  because they wanted it to be more statist than even Brussels allowed. Therefore, right leaders like Tony Blair or perhaps France’s Nicolas Sarkozy are desperately needed.

European foreign policy is bashed, you bet. Europe is nearly irrelevant to the great issues of the future in today’s conflict zones, it no longer even attempts a serious and constructive foreign policy, obstruction of the US is more important than making progress in the world’s most dangerous flashpoints… Can’t we have an opinion that the US is just wrong with the intervention to Iraq? Are the consequences a bit desirable? Were earlier American engagements not instructive? The EU may just admit that it feels fine with diffused foreign policy, but the US “leadership” cannot be followed unreservedly.

Even Red state moral values are imposed on Europe. Nothing can be worse than suicide clinics, infant euthanasia (??), legalized prostitution, collapse of birthrate… So Europeans have a wasting disease in the realm of the human spirit, but why do they feel so good then?  Pro-evangelist ballyhoo culminates with the conclusion that the growing divide between Europe and America is a divide between theism and atheism. (Hence, how do we get America back forward?)

But the strongest phrases are dedicated to European economy: miserable performance, economic malaise, economic trauma, slow suicidal stagnation, financial funk, suffocated domestic markets, and then it’s underperformance stupid, romance for statist economics, dancebands on the Titanic…

Again, you can find cute self-contradictions: The good news is that much of what ails Europe economically today would be fairly easy to fix, given a little foresight, courage, and patience, but then in reality, there is not much hope that continental Europe will catch up economically any time soon. The economic woes of large parts of Europe are so serious that no quick fix can cure them. Eventually, the real reasons for the problems have not been understood fully even among reform-minded Europeans, despite a quarter century of never-ending debates.

They say Europeans sense that their economic systems are failing; they have noticed that the beloved welfare and regulatory systems no longer provides the economic security they used to. But then even if reformers would push hard for comprehensive economic changes, they would meet overwhelming resistance from a majority of Europeans. Things may have to get even uglier before the majority realizes the depth of their countries’ stagnation. Can we ask those scribes to follow some elementary logic?

So what are the biggest European economy traumas? That must be most shocking unemployment rates and anemic economic growth of only a little over 1 percent.  How shocking is that compared with apparently increasing toughness of the climate change and coming oil peak?

Some 12 percent unemployment must be the biggest disaster imaginable, with no incentives for people to become more self-reliant via private enterprise, with shrinking economic opportunity, broken ladder of upward mobility, particularly harsh effects on immigrants and the newcomer young, “surely” with much personal heartache, notably pinched lives and social unrest. That’s Europe producing the unemployed by the millions versus America close to full employment. But why do the numbers differ just by the factor 2 more or less? After all, the Netherlands and Denmark just made some sensible policy changes, still maintain fairly high unemployment benefits, and their unemployment rate is already at or below U.S. levels! Does Europe really need all drastic American measures?

How scandalous is European lower consumption? Germans are shying away from buying houses, even reluctant to buy cars… Does the government have to intervene and blow larger bubbles? Is that where we have to allocate all resources and human talents? Can’t people have other priorities than having whatever low paid job and consuming more than Americans?

Gersemann does cite Paul Krugman, who stated that the big difference between American and European economies is in priorities, not in performance. But the misrepresentation is: The income gap is not the result of lower efficiency in Europe…, pretending that the income leadership must be a foremost priority anywhere. So Krugman is basically right – GDP per hour worked is about the same in the US and in Europe, but working Europeans like to have more good time, with their families as well. Highest productivity gains are not of primary concern for many Europeans.

Much noise is made of Europe failing to keep pace with mushrooming achievements of less heavily bridled American and Asian competitors. As they say, within a generation, Americans will enjoy twice the economic status that Germans do. Europeans are now also being outstripped by Latin American countries that have embraced globalization. Europe’s share of world GDP shrank from 34 percent to 20 percent over the latest lifetime. However, should comparative economic realities be necessarily decisive? Does the experience of 25 years of Reagan/Thatcher revolutions offer enough confidence that the policy works throughout all economic cycles? Is it too crazy to be skeptical about the ultra-liberal trends? Is it wrong to look for stable alternatives, or to have your own view of just world? Why would American conservatives worry so much specifically about Europe’s position, couldn’t they be just as happy with more developed Asia or, say, Africa?

European economy is not in upheaval, but unemployment and inert domestic markets are pale problems compared with apparent instability of energy markets and uncertainty of climate change.  As Gersemann admits, the eurozone still runs a persistent trade surplus, and Germany is the world’s biggest exporter. It is amusing to argue that the big three (Germany, France, Italy) are not healthy for years despite producing three fifths of the eurozone’s economic output, that they can not possibly survive any further social-economic direction. Where is historical evidence for that? Would the welfare systems go into deeper debt than currently the US national budget? Is more stressed social life a sign that some parts of Eastern Europe are healthier than the European norm?

The Red conservatives are very aggressive with imposing their faith based economics, fear based politics, economical social policies and science demeaning initiatives. In the US they succeeded to gather a coalition of corporate interests, cultural conservatives and supremacy ideologues. The think tank conservatives hope to repeat this success in Europe and beyond. Idle opposition is their best friend, as we see in Washington D.C. Progressive Europe should be prepared for the assault. We should know European strengths and sore points, and people in different EU countries. There should be confidence that open empirical arguments and moral responsibility can overcome aggressive dogma. Europe has rich intellectual history. Rational experience in economics and politics serves pretty well presently as well.

[Crossposted at European Tribune.]

Last night the US Secretary Condoleezza Rice appeared on Foxnews’ O’Reilly Factor.

The host was a bit tough, though he did not ask about “No one could have imagined them slamming a plane…“

That’s almost as tough as the 9/11 commission. But what about cafes in Baghdad?
Salon.com has a story.

— “We are all targets for assassination now.” Mokhtar, who is well known in Iraq for spending eight years in Abu Ghraib during Saddam’s regime, knows the feeling well. While other writers cooperated with the previous government, Mokhtar was one of a small number of intellectuals who continued to work without producing the obligatory paeans for the dictator. Eventually, security men came to his house and arrested his typewriter, and finding that unsatisfactory, eventually returned for the man himself. These days, rail-thin but looking much healthier than he did after his release from prison, the soft-spoken Mokhtar argues for religious tolerance and national unity. In Iraq, now a crucible for at two distinct fundamentalist movements, the act of publicly advocating these principles in Baghdad is flat-out heroic.

“When I appear on television and in magazines, that brings me to the attention of these [armed] groups. Many of my friends have been killed, even my colleagues from prison have been targeted. Before, we were suffering under Saddam, but now there are many Saddams.” In the aftermath of the occupation, those loyal to any one of the numerous armed politico-religious gangs are indistinguishable from anyone else in Iraq. The threat is invisible.

[Crossposted at European Tribune and dKos.]

Newt Gingrich at O’Leilly’s Factor:

Bill responds:

Is this the same O’Reilly who just recently bashed greedy oil companies and said that politicians have let us down on Katrina?

To consider it Leilly-philosophically, all the government has to do is to have biggest military, longest vacations, and provide “non-personal” opportunities for those who have money to lobby.

1990’s were different times:

Even last year was different:

New Orleans is unlucky that 2005 is not an election year.

More food for thought about government: here and here.

[Crossposted at Dkos.]

The conservative National Review Online writes this:

It all sounds reasonable from libertarian point of view. But what happened to the argument that gas prices are crucial to the economy? In particular, that they are vital for small businesses and consumers? This argument suddenly disappeared… May suddenly troubled businesses and consumers drop dead?

We may argue about blame proportions in the cited energy crises. For example, one may reasonably say that pure free market is not sufficiently good in anticipating or preparing for these crisises.

Once a crisis happens, we have a choice: do we try to control or influence the reigning chaos, or do we leave everything and everyone to fate’s mercy.

On the long term, it is best to let the free market determine prices, there is no doubt here. But under sudden emergency, is it the most crucial thing to defend opportunities of the few disproportionally lucky? What is wrong in giving numerous people and enterprises a better chance to survive and adopt to new circumstances? Would it be the end of the world if we would have long queues for a week? Is temporarily shortage more terrible than ruined “American dream” lives?

We may not control all intentions and economic eagerness at critical moments, but it certainly seems tolerable to make moral appeal for solidarity from all sides, the vital supply side included. That may save many better lives, and may keep the economy more stable.

The “price control” issue has also the other side of keeping prices above the “natural” level. Then we have precisely the same arguments (“People who value gasoline most are willing to pay higher prices than those who value it less. The former get the gasoline – the latter to some extent go without, etc“) that nothing is horribly wrong, even better, there are no terrible shocks. Or is the something horrible?

Of course, libertarians then probably get back to the “non-efficient economy” litany. But the efficiency has the price of short-sightness. It is even very ironic to require most efficient conduct and impulses from a “good” government when the same ideology says that no government can regulate economy efficiently. Perhaps we may agree that government should not worry about marginal efficiency. But government should have responsibility for anticipating, preparing and dealing with harsh crisises.

[Crossposted at European Tribune and dKos.]

Pleace allow to introduce this song, Rolling Stones and George W. Bush!

Yo!….. Yo!…… Yo!
       bring them on
Woo Good!….
       nu-ku-lar

Please allow me to introduce myself
       I’m the master of low expectations,
I’m a man of wealth and taste
       Some folks look at me and see a certain swagger
I’ve been around for a long, long year
       They misunderestimated me
Stole many a man’s soul and faith
       I’ve coined new words, like, misunderstanding and Hispanically

And I was ’round when Jesus Christ
       Our priorities is our faith
Had his moment of doubt and pain
       we know that suffering is temporary, and hope is eternal
Made damn sure that Pilate
       a faith-based initiative eroding the important bridge between church and state
Washed his hands and sealed his fate
       Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war

Woo, who, who (whoo whoo)
       I am a compassionate conservative
Woo, who, who (whoo whoo)
       My pro-life position is I believe there’s life
Woo, who, who (whoo whoo)
       The really rich people figure out how to dodge taxes anyway
Woo, who, who (whoo whoo)
       I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don’t always agree with them
Oh, who, who (whoo whoo)
       A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there’s no question about it
Woo, who, who (whoo whoo)
       I am George W. Bush
Ah, yeah!
       I am a person who recognizes the fallacy of humans
Whoo whoo
       Brie and cheese
Woo Who Who
       Need some wood?
Whoo whoo
       Put the ‘off’ button on

Yesterday I commented at dKos the coverage of Katrina by the conservative NRO Corner blog. Their focus was not sensitive, to put it mildly. Today started similarly:

That’s the right thing to do, I conservatively suppose.

For a few hours, the hot Katrina issue was looting, of course. Sarcastic remarks were made towards RFK Jr (That man has no shame.) and Gov. Blanco (She may have won the election but she has no business being in charge of anything).

They were not modest:

But soon they were reaching for reality base…

The Bush speach was revealing:

Probably they are even (secretly) impressed with some critique from the left. Here @ @ @ @ @ @ are some articles they refer to. And here are some letters they cite:

Probably only Derbyshire did not write a single post on the hurricane, although he likes titles like ESSAY OF THE WEEK or (yesterday) MOST DEPRESSING EMAIL OF THE DAY. But the big clown was Jonah Goldberg, again. He started they day with

But he got some picture later: