Pirates took control of a French cruise ship off the coast of Somalia. No word on the status of the bond stooge. It should turn out ok though. Jason Patrick and Sandra Bullock are aboard the vessel and will single handedly take out the bad guys, who are lead by Willem Defoe if I remember correctly.
On a more serious note, this shows the kind of consequences that can result from a failed state. There is literally no central authority in Somalia at all. There hasn't been since the UN pulled out in the early 90's. Stable governments, even horrible represive governments, are often preferrable to states of complete anarchy. As long as there is authority, even a malicious one, they have a vested interest in maintaining their status, which includes control over criminal elements (either as convicts or franchisees) and they can be threatened with loss of status in order to force them to conform to some basic norms. When there is no control at all, as long as the criminals are sufficiently well armed and organized, they can function unchecked (see Bin Laden, Afghanistan).
Friday, April 4, 2008
40 Years Ago
RIP.
Oh, guess who voted against making MLK day a national holiday? Go on, guess.
UPDATE: In fairness, McCain has changed his position on this since 1983, and now supports the federal holiday. At least he came around I guess.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Drop Out?
Apropos of a conversation I had with a friend the other night, I was thinking about Hillary's insistence of sticking with this race despite increasingly long odds for victory.
The argument goes that she has no chance to win (which is pretty true, see here). Therefor, by staying in the race, she does two things: 1) cause Obama to spend money on fighting her instead of fighting McCain, and 2) weakening Obama with negative attacks. I don't buy it. First, while Obama is spending money against Hillary, he wouldn't necessarily be able to spend the same amount whacking McCain around. People donate to campaigns because they want the candidate to win, and they are affraid that their favored candidate might lose. Obama's fundraising has been mighty indeed this cycle, but I seriously doubt he'd be raking in $30M a month if the primary was over. Secondly, how effective are attacks seven full months before voting happens? If you can set the narratives of the playing field to your advantage, they can be effective, but I'm not convinced that large media buys actually gets you there. This goes to the second argument too. Really, is anyone going to remember or care what bad things Hillary said about Obama 7 months from now? In addition, I think attacks will actually help Obama should he get the nomination. The recent attacks that everyone seems to think are so bad are the Wright controversy and the "experience" attacks Hillary has launched. I think that having met these arguments and (presumably) overcome them makes Obama a stronger candidate. In a sense it could well "steal the thunder" of McCain saying "I'm more experienced." Voters may hear that and think "yeah yeah, heard it before."
If there is anything I think IS harmful it's when Hillary attacks Obama by implying that both she AND McCain have experience but he does not. That's guaranteed Youtube material. Well gosh, even HILLARY CLINTON thinks that Obama isn't experienced enough. . . etc.
Also, I think there are some positive effects as well. While the candidates have been spending lots of money on TV ads, the also have been spending vast sums on grass roots organizing. Both Hillary and Obama volunteers are out in force registering new voters and bringing them to the polls. That's money that wouldn't be spent (or wouldn't be spent with such abandon) if the nomination was decided. Also, by still having a "live" contest, it keeps the focus of the free media (news etc) on the Democrats. Their ideas and disagreements are getting more air time than anything McCain does. McCain has been busy flying abroad and going on a "personal history" tour because he needs to try and generate attention, anything to get people to look at him.
Sure some super motivated volunteers may be turned off by negative attacks, or may become so polarized that they will not enthusiastically support the eventual winner, but most people don't fall into that category. At worst, I think it's a wash. As long as Hillary can keep from saying nice things about McCain, I think the upside is significant.
The argument goes that she has no chance to win (which is pretty true, see here). Therefor, by staying in the race, she does two things: 1) cause Obama to spend money on fighting her instead of fighting McCain, and 2) weakening Obama with negative attacks. I don't buy it. First, while Obama is spending money against Hillary, he wouldn't necessarily be able to spend the same amount whacking McCain around. People donate to campaigns because they want the candidate to win, and they are affraid that their favored candidate might lose. Obama's fundraising has been mighty indeed this cycle, but I seriously doubt he'd be raking in $30M a month if the primary was over. Secondly, how effective are attacks seven full months before voting happens? If you can set the narratives of the playing field to your advantage, they can be effective, but I'm not convinced that large media buys actually gets you there. This goes to the second argument too. Really, is anyone going to remember or care what bad things Hillary said about Obama 7 months from now? In addition, I think attacks will actually help Obama should he get the nomination. The recent attacks that everyone seems to think are so bad are the Wright controversy and the "experience" attacks Hillary has launched. I think that having met these arguments and (presumably) overcome them makes Obama a stronger candidate. In a sense it could well "steal the thunder" of McCain saying "I'm more experienced." Voters may hear that and think "yeah yeah, heard it before."
If there is anything I think IS harmful it's when Hillary attacks Obama by implying that both she AND McCain have experience but he does not. That's guaranteed Youtube material. Well gosh, even HILLARY CLINTON thinks that Obama isn't experienced enough. . . etc.
Also, I think there are some positive effects as well. While the candidates have been spending lots of money on TV ads, the also have been spending vast sums on grass roots organizing. Both Hillary and Obama volunteers are out in force registering new voters and bringing them to the polls. That's money that wouldn't be spent (or wouldn't be spent with such abandon) if the nomination was decided. Also, by still having a "live" contest, it keeps the focus of the free media (news etc) on the Democrats. Their ideas and disagreements are getting more air time than anything McCain does. McCain has been busy flying abroad and going on a "personal history" tour because he needs to try and generate attention, anything to get people to look at him.
Sure some super motivated volunteers may be turned off by negative attacks, or may become so polarized that they will not enthusiastically support the eventual winner, but most people don't fall into that category. At worst, I think it's a wash. As long as Hillary can keep from saying nice things about McCain, I think the upside is significant.
Yoo Are A Criminal
Just wanted to echo what Glenn Greenwald says here.
A DOJ memo written by John Yoo, former Assistant Deputy Attorney General and current UC Berkley law professor, was just realeased thanks to the hard work of the ACLU. In it John Yoo writes a very lawyerly "opinion" designed to legitimize and legalize the torture and inhumane treatment of human beings in the custody of the US Armed Forces.
This was a criminal act in furtherance of a conspiracy to commit war crimes, plain and simple. In a just world John Yoo would be in prison. The fact that he continues to be employed by one of the nation's most prestigious law schools and frequently invited onto op ed pages and television shows shows how insanely skewed our national debate has become. This is not someone that should be engaged in as an honest intellectual. This is someone that should be jailed for war crimes.
A DOJ memo written by John Yoo, former Assistant Deputy Attorney General and current UC Berkley law professor, was just realeased thanks to the hard work of the ACLU. In it John Yoo writes a very lawyerly "opinion" designed to legitimize and legalize the torture and inhumane treatment of human beings in the custody of the US Armed Forces.
This was a criminal act in furtherance of a conspiracy to commit war crimes, plain and simple. In a just world John Yoo would be in prison. The fact that he continues to be employed by one of the nation's most prestigious law schools and frequently invited onto op ed pages and television shows shows how insanely skewed our national debate has become. This is not someone that should be engaged in as an honest intellectual. This is someone that should be jailed for war crimes.
Commemoration
George W. Bush still has around 9 months left in his term, but it's not too early for people to start speculating about his legacy. Fundraising for the Presidential library has begun (and designs have been submitted by an eager public unsolicited).
Along those lines, San Francisco has decided on a fitting tribute: the George W. Bush Sewage Treatment Plant.
Along those lines, San Francisco has decided on a fitting tribute: the George W. Bush Sewage Treatment Plant.
This Knife In My Back, I Believe It's Yours?
Some pre-lunch finance blogging. Apparently they've dusted for fingerprints at the scene of Bear Stearns demise and they turned up a bunch belonging to Goldman Sachs. The rumors began circling the week before, and that Monday saw a big jump in the credit default swaps, but the last straw was a memo from Goldman to its clients stating that they would not be backing or trading with Bear.
As the article says "Should Goldman be blamed for this? Absolutely not. Bear Stearns was under-capitalized, over-leveraged, and stuffed to the gills with crappy debt." Just because Goldman was the first to the lifeboats doesn't mean that they were responsible for hitting the iceberg. Essentially it was a game theory problem. If everyone sticks together and keeps trading with Bear, chances are that Bear loses value but comes out the other side. Everyone loses money but not a ton. But, if one person heads for the door, it starts a stampede. The first out the door gets their money back, everyone else winds up with huge losses. So in a way, Goldman did it, but really, it was Bear's bad decisions that put them in that place to begin with.
As the article says "Should Goldman be blamed for this? Absolutely not. Bear Stearns was under-capitalized, over-leveraged, and stuffed to the gills with crappy debt." Just because Goldman was the first to the lifeboats doesn't mean that they were responsible for hitting the iceberg. Essentially it was a game theory problem. If everyone sticks together and keeps trading with Bear, chances are that Bear loses value but comes out the other side. Everyone loses money but not a ton. But, if one person heads for the door, it starts a stampede. The first out the door gets their money back, everyone else winds up with huge losses. So in a way, Goldman did it, but really, it was Bear's bad decisions that put them in that place to begin with.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Lunchtime Zimbabwe Blogging
It looks like Robert Mugabe, long time dictator of Zimbabwe may step down according to the New York Times. It seems that the election results were so heavily in favor of the opposition candidate Morgan Tsvangirai that even Mugabe's practiced vote riggers could not credibly claim that Mugabe had won.
This is very exciting news for the people of Zimbabwe, who have suffered under one of the most economically ruinous regimes on the planet. According to the article, the negotiations are not between Mugabe and his opponent, but prominent Mugabe supporters. It looks like they have seen the writing on the wall, and may be promising to sell him out in return for their own protection from reprisal.
This is very exciting news for the people of Zimbabwe, who have suffered under one of the most economically ruinous regimes on the planet. According to the article, the negotiations are not between Mugabe and his opponent, but prominent Mugabe supporters. It looks like they have seen the writing on the wall, and may be promising to sell him out in return for their own protection from reprisal.
Is There Anything They Can't Do?
Google books has been archiving written works, but some books are hard to capture. But Google books has come up with new Scratch and Sniff technology for your browser. Check it out here.
And So It Begins
Good news everyone, this could be the view from your new ranch style colonial vacation home. Google and Virgin Galactic have announced they will team up on the first human mission to colonize Mars. Go to the website here to learn more and take the test to volunteer.
Image from NASA taken by the Spirit Rover February 15. Original here.
UPDATE Nasa has released this incredible new image of water on Mars!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)