Had a look at Sarah Palin's disclosure forms.
I have seen some commentary on the amount of property she owns. Not much note that her husband's tribe (native corportation, BBNC) collectively made close to 1.3 billion dollars in gross oil revenues last year, which is a significant interest even if she personally doesn't rely on it: it's important to the community.
What strikes me the most, however, is just the sloppiness of it all. Handwritten, often last-minute submissions, with boxes not checked, covered in abbreviations. BP is obviously British Petroleum, but who outside Alaska would guess that SBS stands for? Maybe Spenard Building Supply ("Alaska's choice for building materials and home improvements")? The unchecked boxes may seem trivial, but it says something when you fail to be attentive enough to fully complete the form and follow the rules. The instructions say to list all or check "none." Doing neither arguably means that the information has been withheld.
The officials monitoring the disclosures did not flag that, but they did find other items incomplete and seek further information in response to the Wasilla mayoral annual disclosure in 2002, which actually took more than a year to be supplied. Even when filing disclosures for governor, her October 2005 form generated an exchange about necessary changes and the same form was refiled in May 2006 with a new signature over the old one and new information scribbled in the margins.
This to me elevates the unpreparedness factor. It looks like a half-assed backwater operation when the chief exec is filling out these forms by hand and having them sent back for more work. can't you get someone on staff to handle it and make sure it's done right?
Remember, Alaska isn't Texas. There are five cities in Texas alone with more people than the entire state of Alaska, and El Paso is close.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Recipe for Economic Disaster
Every time I see that McCain ad, I think the same thing. It's one of the ads -- not "Taxman", the other one -- that quotes the Las Vegas Review Journal as saying that Obama's tax policies would be a "recipe for economic disaster." And I think, Las Vegas Review Journal?
This ad exploits "source amnesia." People remember they heard something but they forget where they heard it.
Ever see those film reviews where there are three blurbs and they're all from people and outlets you've never heard of? Random radio call letters and obscure papers and magazines? I always see these and think, boy, how desperate must they be? They couldn't get one good review from a source people have actually heard of?
The Las Vegas Review Journal is not the New York Times, Wall Street Journal or USA Today, not even the LA Times. These are the only four national US papers, the only ones with more than a million circulation. It's not in the top 20 by circulation. Or the next 20. Or the next. Which is not exactly a surprise. You've probably never heard of it if you live outside Nevada.
It's not just small, it's extreme. Its editorial policy is far right on economic issues. Wikipedia describes it as libertarian, but from what I've seen it's not a great fan of civil liberties or social progress. Its editorialists are fully committed behind McCain against Obama and stridently press the partisan line.
So it's a not an organ swing voters would naturally want to follow. And it's probably not what a maverick Republican would consider a reliable source. This may be a foolish mistake, or it may be an appeal to the natural followers of the Review Journal. But not likely. In all likelihood, the ad is effective because it carefully and dishonestly uses a quote from an unreliable and unrepresentative source to plant a point.
Not the biggest thing one can knock McCain on, but I see these things, and they get to me.
This ad exploits "source amnesia." People remember they heard something but they forget where they heard it.
Ever see those film reviews where there are three blurbs and they're all from people and outlets you've never heard of? Random radio call letters and obscure papers and magazines? I always see these and think, boy, how desperate must they be? They couldn't get one good review from a source people have actually heard of?
The Las Vegas Review Journal is not the New York Times, Wall Street Journal or USA Today, not even the LA Times. These are the only four national US papers, the only ones with more than a million circulation. It's not in the top 20 by circulation. Or the next 20. Or the next. Which is not exactly a surprise. You've probably never heard of it if you live outside Nevada.
It's not just small, it's extreme. Its editorial policy is far right on economic issues. Wikipedia describes it as libertarian, but from what I've seen it's not a great fan of civil liberties or social progress. Its editorialists are fully committed behind McCain against Obama and stridently press the partisan line.
So it's a not an organ swing voters would naturally want to follow. And it's probably not what a maverick Republican would consider a reliable source. This may be a foolish mistake, or it may be an appeal to the natural followers of the Review Journal. But not likely. In all likelihood, the ad is effective because it carefully and dishonestly uses a quote from an unreliable and unrepresentative source to plant a point.
Not the biggest thing one can knock McCain on, but I see these things, and they get to me.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
A Sigh of Relief in Warsaw
It's so nice to know that new missles in Poland will protect it from Iranian agression. Teheran has of course revived its historical threats, and no one could fail to share the apprehension of Northern Poles at seeing the throngs of Polish Shiities in Rzeszow carrying pictures of Khatami and demanding the reincorporation of Southern Poland into Greater Persia, the way things used to be before the shifting of Polish borders west and south in the reconstitution of 1945. This is of course a blow not just to Russia, but especially to the Yushchenko adminstration in Kiev, which has done the bidding of Iranian officials in Lvov by encouraging cross-border agitation. The missle shield is also sure to dampen Iranian territorial ambitions, frustrating their long-term drive to obtain access to the Baltic.
Palin's Selection
There's been a lot of very good instant commentary on the selection of Sarah Palin as John McCain's running mate. Some of the articles and comments on TPM I think are particularly good at laying out some of her potential plusses and minuses. She is to large extent a cipher, and I would not be shocked if she surpassed all expectations; nor would I be shocked if she were a total disaster. Well, maybe a little shocked: there is not a lot of time for weak spots to show.
Which is an issue in itself.
The most important things about her nomination that we know now are not that she is a woman or that her resume includes more time as a sports reporter, snowmobile seller, and as part of a small body that oversaw her village of 1430 families than as mayor of that village or governor of the 47th largest state (about three times the size of Obama's State Senate district).
Rather, what is important at this stage is the very fact that she is a virtual unknown. And particularly that she is such an unknown even to McCain.
Reports on how McCain made the selection are not impressive. What we have heard is: He's never worked with her. He's met her once. He decided at the last minute. The announcement was clearly designed as an attention-grabber. The The selection is risky, but as Mark Halperin explained, "McCain loves to roll the dice."
Contrast this with Obama: he selected someone wih whom he has worked, and who has a 30-year public record. Biden also was subject to opposition research and media scrutiny while running for the Democratic nomination. He makes numerous public appearances. He is a very known entity and in particular, Obama knows that they interact well. Likewise, Obama went through a very public process of vetting other potential running mates, going on fact-finding trips with them, interviewing, interacting, and observing. They are also well-known public figures and well vetted.
This tells us a little about Biden, nothing about Palin, bust most importantly it tells us something about Obama and McCain. Obama went through a professional orderly process, considered the intelligence, and committed to a course of action. McCain? The clear impression is one of impulsive decision-making based on unnecessarily limited intelligence. If the risk were borne only by the campaign, this might be a plus...
But it won't be if McCain is elected. The other imporant aspect of thic calculation is that not only has Palin apparently not been well vetted by the McCain forces, but it will be very uncertain, if not impossible, whether we can get a good picture of her before election day. If elected, Palin will be in office and standing by to perform as President, whether or not her record would support that decision.
Again, compare with the Obama camp. On Obama's side, the risk inherent from nonexperience is at the top of the ticket. Experience is important for several reasons. One is vetting. We have for Obama several biographies, ranging from excellent to borderline illegal. We have had an extended campaign, with months upon months of investigating Obama as a first-tier candidate. We have a national record.
We have not necessarily had much time to time test whether the policies he championed in the U.S. Senate have been fruitful, but Illinois ain't beanbag. In contrast, Palin is on her second year as governor of a state of 680,000. To go back and see how successful her past actions have been over time, sift through the fallout, one needs to go back before her inauguration in 2006 (statute of limitations is 3 years on state contracts, 6 on torts, for example). That leaves only her mayorship. It's probably safe to say that Illinois faces most (though obviously not all) of the domestic issues the U.S. government faces. Hardly true of Wasilla, pop. 6700.
Incidentally, I don't object to political considerations entering into the selection of a running mate, but the first priority must always be the interests of the country if the nominee is elected. Obama made clear this was his priority, stated so in the face of overbearing media concentration on horserace issues, and selected someone who was credible as a backup president. McCain cannot credibly say that Palin is the best, or second-best, or third-best, or fourth-best, or among the 25 best people for this position. There are too many good people out there, and more importantly, he just hasn't enough knowledge to know how good or bad Palin would be.
McCain bought a pig in a poke, and wants to sell it to America. So the main issue is not whether it is going to turn out to be a good pig. The issue is not the pig but the poke.
Which is an issue in itself.
The most important things about her nomination that we know now are not that she is a woman or that her resume includes more time as a sports reporter, snowmobile seller, and as part of a small body that oversaw her village of 1430 families than as mayor of that village or governor of the 47th largest state (about three times the size of Obama's State Senate district).
Rather, what is important at this stage is the very fact that she is a virtual unknown. And particularly that she is such an unknown even to McCain.
Reports on how McCain made the selection are not impressive. What we have heard is: He's never worked with her. He's met her once. He decided at the last minute. The announcement was clearly designed as an attention-grabber. The The selection is risky, but as Mark Halperin explained, "McCain loves to roll the dice."
Contrast this with Obama: he selected someone wih whom he has worked, and who has a 30-year public record. Biden also was subject to opposition research and media scrutiny while running for the Democratic nomination. He makes numerous public appearances. He is a very known entity and in particular, Obama knows that they interact well. Likewise, Obama went through a very public process of vetting other potential running mates, going on fact-finding trips with them, interviewing, interacting, and observing. They are also well-known public figures and well vetted.
This tells us a little about Biden, nothing about Palin, bust most importantly it tells us something about Obama and McCain. Obama went through a professional orderly process, considered the intelligence, and committed to a course of action. McCain? The clear impression is one of impulsive decision-making based on unnecessarily limited intelligence. If the risk were borne only by the campaign, this might be a plus...
But it won't be if McCain is elected. The other imporant aspect of thic calculation is that not only has Palin apparently not been well vetted by the McCain forces, but it will be very uncertain, if not impossible, whether we can get a good picture of her before election day. If elected, Palin will be in office and standing by to perform as President, whether or not her record would support that decision.
Again, compare with the Obama camp. On Obama's side, the risk inherent from nonexperience is at the top of the ticket. Experience is important for several reasons. One is vetting. We have for Obama several biographies, ranging from excellent to borderline illegal. We have had an extended campaign, with months upon months of investigating Obama as a first-tier candidate. We have a national record.
We have not necessarily had much time to time test whether the policies he championed in the U.S. Senate have been fruitful, but Illinois ain't beanbag. In contrast, Palin is on her second year as governor of a state of 680,000. To go back and see how successful her past actions have been over time, sift through the fallout, one needs to go back before her inauguration in 2006 (statute of limitations is 3 years on state contracts, 6 on torts, for example). That leaves only her mayorship. It's probably safe to say that Illinois faces most (though obviously not all) of the domestic issues the U.S. government faces. Hardly true of Wasilla, pop. 6700.
Incidentally, I don't object to political considerations entering into the selection of a running mate, but the first priority must always be the interests of the country if the nominee is elected. Obama made clear this was his priority, stated so in the face of overbearing media concentration on horserace issues, and selected someone who was credible as a backup president. McCain cannot credibly say that Palin is the best, or second-best, or third-best, or fourth-best, or among the 25 best people for this position. There are too many good people out there, and more importantly, he just hasn't enough knowledge to know how good or bad Palin would be.
McCain bought a pig in a poke, and wants to sell it to America. So the main issue is not whether it is going to turn out to be a good pig. The issue is not the pig but the poke.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Celebrity-Envy
I don't relate to the reaction of some pundits that John McCain's purchasing of ad time on the evening of Barack Obama's nomination acceptance speech as gracious or classy. First of all, the ad has a false, patronizing and at times almost sarcastic quality and most importantly, it seems to say on one level, this is your day, I won't interrupt, while on a deeper level screaming, "Hey, over here, don;t forget about me!"
First an analysis of the text:
1 Senator Obama, this is truly a good day for America.
2 Too often the achievements of our opponents go unnoticed.
3 So I wanted to stop and say, Congratulations.
4 How perfect that your nomination would come on this historic day.
5 Tomorrow, we’ll be back at it.
6 But tonight, Senator, job well done.
1a) First of all, it's an open message to Obama, which means, I will direct my speech to you, but rather than speak to you privately, I will pay to show millions of people the image of me talking to you, because it is really a message for them to see me talking to you. We won;t show any images of you in the ad, because it's about me looking good, not you. It's my way of hogging some attention while trying to look superficially like I'm being respectful toward you.
1b) It's a good day for America. I won't be specific why, because I want to claim to care about race relations in spite of my record, and without doing anything, and I won't even mention it because I can't do it deftly enough to not get in trouble, especially since I want to keep the racist vote energized for me.
2a) This is absurdly vague and almost certainly does not say what it means. What it suggests is, too often, we all fail to notice our opponents' achievements. For example, I may might go completely unaware of your obtaining your party's nomination for president, and you might fail to mention repeatedly how I was a POW. But this is not literally what it says. To go unnoticed is not specific as to who is not noticing. Literally, it seems to suggest that everyone regardless of side fails to notice enough. The "our" is ambiguous -- whose opponents? Who is us? We in politics? We on my side? Me and you? And it it each of us our own opponents, or our common enemies? Did we not notice Bin Laden's achievements often enough?
2b) "We" is intended to suggest you and I are in some kind of parity despite this being your day and not mine.
2c) Making it a general statement about not appreciating our adversaries is a vague way of stealing your trademark vision of a new politics, without actually acting that way or committing to do so. (See 5a.)
3a) Way to go kid. I know this will mean a lot coming from me because I'm so much more experienced than you.
3b) By stop, I mean step into your spotlight for a moment and steal a little of your reflected media.
4) Yeah, gee, how convenient that it worked out that way. What an odd coincidence. Smirk!
5a) This is my escape clause to be able to knofe you tomorrow and not look like I went back on my word.
5b) We again. You, ahead in the polls, me behind, really just alike, both alike.
6) See 3a.
What this really makes me think of is 1a/3b: this guy can't shut up for one day, he needs to get the attention. Now this is probably a campaign decision that was done for practical and not emotional reasons: throw Obama off gain, keep your own campaign from being forgotten, score points with key groups. But it also has a look to me of being a purely emotional investment, and it does this not just because that is a dominant vibe of the ad, its timing, its function. It is also because that is part of a pattern and an emerging meme for McCain: McCain the attention-craver who can't get over his envy of someone else's superior celebrity.
I'm not an expert on McCain's bio, but here are some bits that strike me from what I know:
He describes in his autobiography how at age 2 or so he would keep passing out because he would hold his breath until he turned blue. He was a spoiled little kid who wanted attention.
He led a wild life and was a bad boy prior to his military service and period as a POW. Lots of sex and booze and nasty behavior. He was like a spoiled little kid who wanted attention.
He was treated by the Vietnamese as a celebrity POW because his daddy and granddaddy were famous and important admirals. After returning to the US, he enjoyed some celebrity because of being a POW, so for a while he had the fame he wanted.
His military career was okay, but he was never gonna get to be dad or granddad. He loved the legislative liaison work with lots of travel, power, and money closeby, so he got into politics. Public service my ass. He was a nobody on the fringes of fame and he wanted some of the that celebrity for himself as he had had before.
He got into politics. He soon developed a comprehensive media strategy which involved selective brief adoption of populist stands on reform issues to develop a phony reputation as a maverick, being unusually chummy with the press (although still hiding the dirt), and relying on the POW card. He started running for president, writing books, appearing on shows like 24 and SNL, doing more talk shows than anyone else, and grandstanding on selected issues.
His ads have appeared obsessed with griping about Obama being more successful, younger, smarter, and better than him, drawing bigger crowds, mastering issues more easily, quickly gaining access to and praise from national and world leaders. What an elitist, celebrity, hotshot, smartypants -- ooo, he makes me so mad, I could just hold my breath till I turn blue and pass out.
First an analysis of the text:
1 Senator Obama, this is truly a good day for America.
2 Too often the achievements of our opponents go unnoticed.
3 So I wanted to stop and say, Congratulations.
4 How perfect that your nomination would come on this historic day.
5 Tomorrow, we’ll be back at it.
6 But tonight, Senator, job well done.
1a) First of all, it's an open message to Obama, which means, I will direct my speech to you, but rather than speak to you privately, I will pay to show millions of people the image of me talking to you, because it is really a message for them to see me talking to you. We won;t show any images of you in the ad, because it's about me looking good, not you. It's my way of hogging some attention while trying to look superficially like I'm being respectful toward you.
1b) It's a good day for America. I won't be specific why, because I want to claim to care about race relations in spite of my record, and without doing anything, and I won't even mention it because I can't do it deftly enough to not get in trouble, especially since I want to keep the racist vote energized for me.
2a) This is absurdly vague and almost certainly does not say what it means. What it suggests is, too often, we all fail to notice our opponents' achievements. For example, I may might go completely unaware of your obtaining your party's nomination for president, and you might fail to mention repeatedly how I was a POW. But this is not literally what it says. To go unnoticed is not specific as to who is not noticing. Literally, it seems to suggest that everyone regardless of side fails to notice enough. The "our" is ambiguous -- whose opponents? Who is us? We in politics? We on my side? Me and you? And it it each of us our own opponents, or our common enemies? Did we not notice Bin Laden's achievements often enough?
2b) "We" is intended to suggest you and I are in some kind of parity despite this being your day and not mine.
2c) Making it a general statement about not appreciating our adversaries is a vague way of stealing your trademark vision of a new politics, without actually acting that way or committing to do so. (See 5a.)
3a) Way to go kid. I know this will mean a lot coming from me because I'm so much more experienced than you.
3b) By stop, I mean step into your spotlight for a moment and steal a little of your reflected media.
4) Yeah, gee, how convenient that it worked out that way. What an odd coincidence. Smirk!
5a) This is my escape clause to be able to knofe you tomorrow and not look like I went back on my word.
5b) We again. You, ahead in the polls, me behind, really just alike, both alike.
6) See 3a.
What this really makes me think of is 1a/3b: this guy can't shut up for one day, he needs to get the attention. Now this is probably a campaign decision that was done for practical and not emotional reasons: throw Obama off gain, keep your own campaign from being forgotten, score points with key groups. But it also has a look to me of being a purely emotional investment, and it does this not just because that is a dominant vibe of the ad, its timing, its function. It is also because that is part of a pattern and an emerging meme for McCain: McCain the attention-craver who can't get over his envy of someone else's superior celebrity.
I'm not an expert on McCain's bio, but here are some bits that strike me from what I know:
He describes in his autobiography how at age 2 or so he would keep passing out because he would hold his breath until he turned blue. He was a spoiled little kid who wanted attention.
He led a wild life and was a bad boy prior to his military service and period as a POW. Lots of sex and booze and nasty behavior. He was like a spoiled little kid who wanted attention.
He was treated by the Vietnamese as a celebrity POW because his daddy and granddaddy were famous and important admirals. After returning to the US, he enjoyed some celebrity because of being a POW, so for a while he had the fame he wanted.
His military career was okay, but he was never gonna get to be dad or granddad. He loved the legislative liaison work with lots of travel, power, and money closeby, so he got into politics. Public service my ass. He was a nobody on the fringes of fame and he wanted some of the that celebrity for himself as he had had before.
He got into politics. He soon developed a comprehensive media strategy which involved selective brief adoption of populist stands on reform issues to develop a phony reputation as a maverick, being unusually chummy with the press (although still hiding the dirt), and relying on the POW card. He started running for president, writing books, appearing on shows like 24 and SNL, doing more talk shows than anyone else, and grandstanding on selected issues.
His ads have appeared obsessed with griping about Obama being more successful, younger, smarter, and better than him, drawing bigger crowds, mastering issues more easily, quickly gaining access to and praise from national and world leaders. What an elitist, celebrity, hotshot, smartypants -- ooo, he makes me so mad, I could just hold my breath till I turn blue and pass out.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
"Suspect"
In a report on the local news last night on WTMJ, the reporter did something again that I've occasionally noticed, but which freshly struck me when I saw it again: she used the word "suspect" to refer not to a particular person of whom the authorities bore suspicion, but a person acting in a clearly criminal manner, e.g., "So-and-so was at home and heard a noise in their living room. Going to investigate, they saw a burglar in their home. The suspect was stuffing the family possessions into a backpack." Tonight's was a pretty clear-cut case of this.
The ill which this portends, and which I hope comes back to bite these stations in some form of libel action, is that it means they are re-defining the word "suspect" for their viewers to mean "perpetrator" so that when they describe an innocent person as a "suspect," they are in fact stating literally and explicitly that that person is guilty.
I know this seems like an exaggerated claim. Surely, it must be merely implicit that they are being called guilty, right? Wrong. Consider how this plays out in the form of a debate:
P: You ruined my life. You told everybody I committed this crime.
D: No we didn't. We never said that.
P: Well, that was clearly what you meant. That's what everyone understood.
D: We're not responsible for how our reports may be misinterpreted. We clearly stated you were only a suspect. Look it up. It means you didn't necessarily do anything. It means just that some people think you might have done it.
P: But that's not what it means to your viewers. It's not how you use the word yourself. On other newscasts you've said someone definitely did something, and then you call the person who did it the "suspect." When you use the word in that way, you give it the meaning of someone definitely guilty. A reasonable person, familiar with the way you use language, would understand you to be saying that I was definitely guilty. And that includes you: you knew what you were saying when you said it.
The ill which this portends, and which I hope comes back to bite these stations in some form of libel action, is that it means they are re-defining the word "suspect" for their viewers to mean "perpetrator" so that when they describe an innocent person as a "suspect," they are in fact stating literally and explicitly that that person is guilty.
I know this seems like an exaggerated claim. Surely, it must be merely implicit that they are being called guilty, right? Wrong. Consider how this plays out in the form of a debate:
P: You ruined my life. You told everybody I committed this crime.
D: No we didn't. We never said that.
P: Well, that was clearly what you meant. That's what everyone understood.
D: We're not responsible for how our reports may be misinterpreted. We clearly stated you were only a suspect. Look it up. It means you didn't necessarily do anything. It means just that some people think you might have done it.
P: But that's not what it means to your viewers. It's not how you use the word yourself. On other newscasts you've said someone definitely did something, and then you call the person who did it the "suspect." When you use the word in that way, you give it the meaning of someone definitely guilty. A reasonable person, familiar with the way you use language, would understand you to be saying that I was definitely guilty. And that includes you: you knew what you were saying when you said it.
Friday, August 15, 2008
More on Georgia
As the news filters in with respect to the Russia-Georgia conflict, I find myself with some views and ideas, which are not necessarily those that would be suggested by my comment a week ago.
I still think the media and some politicians' responses bear internal contradictions that make them seem not a little bit odd, to say the least. Perhaps they are simply unclear, but in any event it is confusing and suggests a very odd mindset indeed when the same figures refer to Russia as having violated the territorial integrity of a sovereign nation, and as having responded disproportionately in how they did so. This would make sense, perhaps, if Georgia had invaded Russia, but it is hard to see how the two ideas are consistent when the same comments make no acknowlegement of any attack or provocation against Russia. It makes it sound like Bernie and Jeff are standing on a streetcorner, Jeff minding his own business when Bernie suddenly smacks him in the head, throws him to the ground and starts kicking him in the gut. Along comes George Bush or John McCain and says, gee, I find that to be an overreaction.
It turns out, though, that Russia has a position that makes the charge of disproportionality a rational one. It has rights and obligations under treaty which include stationing of forces in South Ossetia. So when Georgia decides to throw aside the treaty and subject the Ossetian entity -- something less than a recognized state, but nevertheless paradoxically a party in its own right to an international accord with Georgia and Russia -- to an attack that afflicts Russians and Russian rights, the whole equation reverses and Russia becomes the unsung victim. At that point it is credible to say that they overreacted. But the talk of Georgian territorial integrity becomes somewhat strained. If recognition of the old Georgian border was a consideration in the threaty Georgia has broken, then we can talk about respecting sovereignty, but Russia has a reasonable argument that it can respond with its own incursions against Georgian territory. An aggressor is in no position to demand that the one it attacks limit its responses to disputed territory.
I don't know much about this situation and don't take an ultimate position, but I have always remarked that the most acute failures of the media are those which take little knowledge to detect. This is such a case. The commenters have a lot of trouble making sense.
Take the claim, endlessly repeated, that Russia is trying but failing to take over all of Georgia. Well, maybe it's trying but failing to take over all of Asia. Maybe Georgia is. But what's the evidence? That it has not done so? Perhaps Turkey is trying to overrun Brazil. The fact that it has not done so is proof that it has failed in its ambitions. I somehow think that if Russia wanted to seize Georgia it could do so. Has it ever done so before?
A parallel I am waiting to hear mentioned is Panama. A superpower has troops in its backyard, permitted by treaty, right at the edge of a major global transshipment point for a vital resource. A hostile local leader, with a horrible record on democracy and human rights, rattles his sabre. A prospect looms in the future for a treaty realignment. Then there is a petty outrage against the superpower's constabulary. Suddenly the entire country is taken over and a friendly government installed. The last part has not happened in Georgia, but Russia is accused of wanting it. Does anyone sense a bit of projection here?
And remarkably, McCain actually gets credit from the press for the best reaction despite: (1) having no nuance or precision or sense of proportion, and actually saying that countries don't invade other countries in this century (Iraq and, if he get's his way, apparently won't count because they'll continue through 2101.) (2) jumping to an extreme and bellicose position before he has any reliable intelligence, a formula that has proven in the past to get us into conflicts that may last to 2101, (3) saying exactly what he is told to say by his lobbyist advisors and effectively becoming the puppet of a tinpot Central Asian despot.
I still think the media and some politicians' responses bear internal contradictions that make them seem not a little bit odd, to say the least. Perhaps they are simply unclear, but in any event it is confusing and suggests a very odd mindset indeed when the same figures refer to Russia as having violated the territorial integrity of a sovereign nation, and as having responded disproportionately in how they did so. This would make sense, perhaps, if Georgia had invaded Russia, but it is hard to see how the two ideas are consistent when the same comments make no acknowlegement of any attack or provocation against Russia. It makes it sound like Bernie and Jeff are standing on a streetcorner, Jeff minding his own business when Bernie suddenly smacks him in the head, throws him to the ground and starts kicking him in the gut. Along comes George Bush or John McCain and says, gee, I find that to be an overreaction.
It turns out, though, that Russia has a position that makes the charge of disproportionality a rational one. It has rights and obligations under treaty which include stationing of forces in South Ossetia. So when Georgia decides to throw aside the treaty and subject the Ossetian entity -- something less than a recognized state, but nevertheless paradoxically a party in its own right to an international accord with Georgia and Russia -- to an attack that afflicts Russians and Russian rights, the whole equation reverses and Russia becomes the unsung victim. At that point it is credible to say that they overreacted. But the talk of Georgian territorial integrity becomes somewhat strained. If recognition of the old Georgian border was a consideration in the threaty Georgia has broken, then we can talk about respecting sovereignty, but Russia has a reasonable argument that it can respond with its own incursions against Georgian territory. An aggressor is in no position to demand that the one it attacks limit its responses to disputed territory.
I don't know much about this situation and don't take an ultimate position, but I have always remarked that the most acute failures of the media are those which take little knowledge to detect. This is such a case. The commenters have a lot of trouble making sense.
Take the claim, endlessly repeated, that Russia is trying but failing to take over all of Georgia. Well, maybe it's trying but failing to take over all of Asia. Maybe Georgia is. But what's the evidence? That it has not done so? Perhaps Turkey is trying to overrun Brazil. The fact that it has not done so is proof that it has failed in its ambitions. I somehow think that if Russia wanted to seize Georgia it could do so. Has it ever done so before?
A parallel I am waiting to hear mentioned is Panama. A superpower has troops in its backyard, permitted by treaty, right at the edge of a major global transshipment point for a vital resource. A hostile local leader, with a horrible record on democracy and human rights, rattles his sabre. A prospect looms in the future for a treaty realignment. Then there is a petty outrage against the superpower's constabulary. Suddenly the entire country is taken over and a friendly government installed. The last part has not happened in Georgia, but Russia is accused of wanting it. Does anyone sense a bit of projection here?
And remarkably, McCain actually gets credit from the press for the best reaction despite: (1) having no nuance or precision or sense of proportion, and actually saying that countries don't invade other countries in this century (Iraq and, if he get's his way, apparently won't count because they'll continue through 2101.) (2) jumping to an extreme and bellicose position before he has any reliable intelligence, a formula that has proven in the past to get us into conflicts that may last to 2101, (3) saying exactly what he is told to say by his lobbyist advisors and effectively becoming the puppet of a tinpot Central Asian despot.
Saturday, August 09, 2008
Energy Policy: Top Ten Reasons to Reduce Demand
It surprises me that the presidential campaign is mostly about energy policy. Perhaps I'm overcompensating for my surprise it was not a bigger issue four years ago. I'm also surprised that McCain would make drilling and nuclear his big issue. My impression is that most people aren't especially positive about those things, though obviously, they buy the argument that they got better when oil prices went up again.
At any rate, there are a few really compelling arguments for conservation that I think deserve more attention:
1. Comfort. People associate saving with austerity and constant attention to details, all stress and burden and sacrifice. That's not what conservation is about. If you lived in a house with an extremely inefficient heating system, you are not making yourself more comfortable. You're just losing money to no good effect. If you improve efficiency, it becomes cheaper to purchase comfort, and you have more money to purchase it with, so efficiency means a longer shower, not a shorter one.
2. National Pride. If you don't conserve, you waste. It's like having an army of people around the country whom we pay to dig a big hole in the desert, suck oil from the ground, refine it, transport it to the hole, and keep it burning all summer long. Everyone knows it. No one respects waste. It's just stupid. So follow that up with one simple question: Is that what our country stands for?
3. National security. If you free yourself from a need, that's one less vulnerability that can be used against you. If you reduce demand for oil, there's no way that can be used against you. But if you cater to it, feed the need by turning to riskier and less secure sources, you prostrate yourself before anyone who can threaten that resource. Pipeline. Tanker. Nuke. Any of those sound like potential targets to you? The transalaska pipeline is notoriously vulnerable and impossible to secure. We've seen the damage a breached tanker can do, and we've seen our enemies target sea vessels. And drills to test our security at nuclear plants have shown they are not ready.
4. Speed. Conservation and alternative energies are closer at hand than you may think. While we've been slow to implement them, we and the rest of the world have developed the technologies. In contrast, nuke plants and new oil exploitation take forever. Paris Hilton may think otherwise, but she and McCain are just wrong.
5, 6, 7, 8. Environment, Sustainability, Climate Change, and Piety. These are all aspects of an overarching stewardship issue. There's no need to spend a lot of words saying that the prospects of conventional pollution from fossil fuels and nuclear are generally greater than that from conservation. Or that one can keep saving forever, while fossil fuels are limited. Climate change is worth noting especially because the effects have intensified and produced a global awareness and consensus only recently. Piety is an aspect that should not be overlooked. Most religious traditions, and evangelical Chrisianity in particular, view careful stewardship of nature as not just a human good but a divine mandate. Faith would call upon us to save energy even it it were not already in our interest in many other ways.
9. Economics. If you keep demand high, you are engaging in a risky economics. The economics of fuel consumption become the same as they are for heroin addiction. Demand is inflexible, meaning suppliers can push up the price by limiting supply. There is no way we can expand domestic supplies so much as to completely negate this effect. On the other hand, if we reduce domestic demand, that will leave us more domestic supply which we can export for profit.
10. Technology. Conservation is a technology-intensive endeavor that plays to our strength. By going this route, we master something and create an area where we will lead the world. We create jobs domestically that cannot be easily exported, developing and installing the new tech. This has benefits for economics and national pride (see above) and is likely to produce spinoff technologies which will benefit us in ways we cannot even guess at. Finally, conservation technologies experience synergy: technologies to improve efficiency themselves consume energy, but when several exist, each can improve the efficiency of the others so there is a massive multiplier effect. For instance, transport ethanol in high-efficiency vehicles and it turns from a boondoggle to an effective efficiency technology. The point is that this should be not cast as some sort of hippie fantasy, but as the object of modern technophilia: the opportunites are there to develop systems for efficient production, use, and recovery of energy that resemble science fiction. Oooo! Ahhh!
At any rate, there are a few really compelling arguments for conservation that I think deserve more attention:
1. Comfort. People associate saving with austerity and constant attention to details, all stress and burden and sacrifice. That's not what conservation is about. If you lived in a house with an extremely inefficient heating system, you are not making yourself more comfortable. You're just losing money to no good effect. If you improve efficiency, it becomes cheaper to purchase comfort, and you have more money to purchase it with, so efficiency means a longer shower, not a shorter one.
2. National Pride. If you don't conserve, you waste. It's like having an army of people around the country whom we pay to dig a big hole in the desert, suck oil from the ground, refine it, transport it to the hole, and keep it burning all summer long. Everyone knows it. No one respects waste. It's just stupid. So follow that up with one simple question: Is that what our country stands for?
3. National security. If you free yourself from a need, that's one less vulnerability that can be used against you. If you reduce demand for oil, there's no way that can be used against you. But if you cater to it, feed the need by turning to riskier and less secure sources, you prostrate yourself before anyone who can threaten that resource. Pipeline. Tanker. Nuke. Any of those sound like potential targets to you? The transalaska pipeline is notoriously vulnerable and impossible to secure. We've seen the damage a breached tanker can do, and we've seen our enemies target sea vessels. And drills to test our security at nuclear plants have shown they are not ready.
4. Speed. Conservation and alternative energies are closer at hand than you may think. While we've been slow to implement them, we and the rest of the world have developed the technologies. In contrast, nuke plants and new oil exploitation take forever. Paris Hilton may think otherwise, but she and McCain are just wrong.
5, 6, 7, 8. Environment, Sustainability, Climate Change, and Piety. These are all aspects of an overarching stewardship issue. There's no need to spend a lot of words saying that the prospects of conventional pollution from fossil fuels and nuclear are generally greater than that from conservation. Or that one can keep saving forever, while fossil fuels are limited. Climate change is worth noting especially because the effects have intensified and produced a global awareness and consensus only recently. Piety is an aspect that should not be overlooked. Most religious traditions, and evangelical Chrisianity in particular, view careful stewardship of nature as not just a human good but a divine mandate. Faith would call upon us to save energy even it it were not already in our interest in many other ways.
9. Economics. If you keep demand high, you are engaging in a risky economics. The economics of fuel consumption become the same as they are for heroin addiction. Demand is inflexible, meaning suppliers can push up the price by limiting supply. There is no way we can expand domestic supplies so much as to completely negate this effect. On the other hand, if we reduce domestic demand, that will leave us more domestic supply which we can export for profit.
10. Technology. Conservation is a technology-intensive endeavor that plays to our strength. By going this route, we master something and create an area where we will lead the world. We create jobs domestically that cannot be easily exported, developing and installing the new tech. This has benefits for economics and national pride (see above) and is likely to produce spinoff technologies which will benefit us in ways we cannot even guess at. Finally, conservation technologies experience synergy: technologies to improve efficiency themselves consume energy, but when several exist, each can improve the efficiency of the others so there is a massive multiplier effect. For instance, transport ethanol in high-efficiency vehicles and it turns from a boondoggle to an effective efficiency technology. The point is that this should be not cast as some sort of hippie fantasy, but as the object of modern technophilia: the opportunites are there to develop systems for efficient production, use, and recovery of energy that resemble science fiction. Oooo! Ahhh!
Media Oddity: South Ossetia
Another short note.
Since the US government position emphasizes that Georgia is sovereign and South Ossetia is part of it, and therefore that Russia is committing aggression against Georgia by its military action in South Ossetia, one might expect the US news networks to adhere uncritically to labeling South Ossetia as a mere region of Georgia, and at most point out for sake of context that South Ossetia did declare independence, but its statehood has not been recognized by the world's governments.
So it has surprised me, and contradicted to some extent my general view of the US government's hegemonic role over the media, that so much of the early reporting, not just by my local news, but by the networks and major print media, has at least fudged on the status of the region, and at times, has seemed to positively suggest that it is a genuine independent breakaway republic, which Georgia was undertaking to re-acquire. This despite the fact that in the narrative of the government, it was not seeking to annex a state formed by separatists; it was cracking down on its own citizens that resisted the supremacy of the legal national government.
My explanation is that the media responds to what it sees and feels more than it responds to the law. As I understand, the de facto situation was that there was a separate country of South Ossetia, because Georgia had let that condition persist since the end of the war back in the '90s. That situation existed in seeming contradiction to the legal status of the region as part of Georgia. On this account, it would be something like the U.S. letting Texas get taken over by far-right nuts who think of the federal government as an occupier, and after that letting Texas do whatever it wants, and operate with complete autonomy, but remain legally a part of the U.S. for foreign policy purposes. Looking at Texas from the inside, you would not think it was part of the U.S. The media would get caught up in that, and their language would reflect that, even if it were not legally correct.
UPDATE: I have made a couple of unmarked edits to the above. It appears to me now that there is another explanation. There is in fact a more nuanced legal status of the region, and there is a deeper narrative under the surface reporting in which the government acknowledges some of this nuance and is actually sending mixed signals. This comes through in the media with the contradictions appearing in the surface without the explanation. (Also, the comparison to nuts in Texas is valid as a theoretical point of debate, but paints both Texans and Ossetians in an unfairly negative light, so I declare the example withdrawn.)
Since the US government position emphasizes that Georgia is sovereign and South Ossetia is part of it, and therefore that Russia is committing aggression against Georgia by its military action in South Ossetia, one might expect the US news networks to adhere uncritically to labeling South Ossetia as a mere region of Georgia, and at most point out for sake of context that South Ossetia did declare independence, but its statehood has not been recognized by the world's governments.
So it has surprised me, and contradicted to some extent my general view of the US government's hegemonic role over the media, that so much of the early reporting, not just by my local news, but by the networks and major print media, has at least fudged on the status of the region, and at times, has seemed to positively suggest that it is a genuine independent breakaway republic, which Georgia was undertaking to re-acquire. This despite the fact that in the narrative of the government, it was not seeking to annex a state formed by separatists; it was cracking down on its own citizens that resisted the supremacy of the legal national government.
My explanation is that the media responds to what it sees and feels more than it responds to the law. As I understand, the de facto situation was that there was a separate country of South Ossetia, because Georgia had let that condition persist since the end of the war back in the '90s. That situation existed in seeming contradiction to the legal status of the region as part of Georgia. On this account, it would be something like the U.S. letting Texas get taken over by far-right nuts who think of the federal government as an occupier, and after that letting Texas do whatever it wants, and operate with complete autonomy, but remain legally a part of the U.S. for foreign policy purposes. Looking at Texas from the inside, you would not think it was part of the U.S. The media would get caught up in that, and their language would reflect that, even if it were not legally correct.
UPDATE: I have made a couple of unmarked edits to the above. It appears to me now that there is another explanation. There is in fact a more nuanced legal status of the region, and there is a deeper narrative under the surface reporting in which the government acknowledges some of this nuance and is actually sending mixed signals. This comes through in the media with the contradictions appearing in the surface without the explanation. (Also, the comparison to nuts in Texas is valid as a theoretical point of debate, but paints both Texans and Ossetians in an unfairly negative light, so I declare the example withdrawn.)
Friday, August 08, 2008
I wake up
I've been kind of depressed and not working much for the last six weeks. I feel like the last couple of days I've really picked things up and gotten back to my old self. I have had a number of things I've wanted to post lately. But it seems like a tradition at this blog to break silence with a short gripe against my local news, so here goes:
Hundreds dead as war breaks out between Russia and Georgia. We'll have that nine-second report in a few minutes, but first, more fan reactions about Brett Favre's trade to the Jets.
Hundreds dead as war breaks out between Russia and Georgia. We'll have that nine-second report in a few minutes, but first, more fan reactions about Brett Favre's trade to the Jets.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
