28 July 2008
Reading and the Web
The real weakness of literacy on the Internet is the lack of professional editing and criticism. The narratives one reads on the Web, often supplied by undisclosed authors, are not vetted for spelling, grammar, syntax, accuracy or authoritativeness. Moreover, instant reactions are invited that may be checked only for decency. This is little better than street-corner palaver and certainly does not foster intellectual rigor or refined standards of analysis.
The Internet demonstrates that you get what you pay for. Society is paying the price for allowing its youth to linger in electronic hangouts where fantasy and self-indulgence can be enjoyed because parents and guardians believe there is no danger of immediate physical harm. If discipline is not imposed on this behavior to limit it as an escape from the painful work of learning and skill development, the Internet may end up creating more human targets for criminal exploitation than intelligent leaders enriched by easily accessible information and opinion.
The real weakness of literacy on the Internet is the lack of professional editing and criticism. The narratives one reads on the Web, often supplied by undisclosed authors, are not vetted for spelling, grammar, syntax, accuracy or authoritativeness. Moreover, instant reactions are invited that may be checked only for decency. This is little better than street-corner palaver and certainly does not foster intellectual rigor or refined standards of analysis.
The Internet demonstrates that you get what you pay for. Society is paying the price for allowing its youth to linger in electronic hangouts where fantasy and self-indulgence can be enjoyed because parents and guardians believe there is no danger of immediate physical harm. If discipline is not imposed on this behavior to limit it as an escape from the painful work of learning and skill development, the Internet may end up creating more human targets for criminal exploitation than intelligent leaders enriched by easily accessible information and opinion.
Al Qaeda in Iraq Is Only a Convenient Rationalization for the U.S. Occupation
Wasn't AQI only an opportunistic attempt by disaffected regional Sunni Arabs to take advantage of the chaos in Iraq caused by resistance to the American occupation? That may also explain the Iranian intervention on behalf of the Shia majority.
The fundantal question is, Why is the U.S. in Iraq at all? It appears that Iraq will end up dominated by the Shia majority, now that the Sunni Awakening Councils have dampened their resistance. The once dominant and now resigned to second-fiddle Sunni minority has lost enthusiasm for fighting Shias. Thanks to Petraeus, the Americans have realized that pacification of Iraq could come at a much cheaper price by abandoning the military's earlier "clear and control" tactics.
This resolution of the political order in Iraq would probably have happened anyway on its own. All the U.S. had to do after dethroning Saddam was withdraw from the country. Instead, we lost thousands of lives and billions of dollars in proving ourselves to be the biggest bullies on the block.
Wasn't AQI only an opportunistic attempt by disaffected regional Sunni Arabs to take advantage of the chaos in Iraq caused by resistance to the American occupation? That may also explain the Iranian intervention on behalf of the Shia majority.
The fundantal question is, Why is the U.S. in Iraq at all? It appears that Iraq will end up dominated by the Shia majority, now that the Sunni Awakening Councils have dampened their resistance. The once dominant and now resigned to second-fiddle Sunni minority has lost enthusiasm for fighting Shias. Thanks to Petraeus, the Americans have realized that pacification of Iraq could come at a much cheaper price by abandoning the military's earlier "clear and control" tactics.
This resolution of the political order in Iraq would probably have happened anyway on its own. All the U.S. had to do after dethroning Saddam was withdraw from the country. Instead, we lost thousands of lives and billions of dollars in proving ourselves to be the biggest bullies on the block.
24 July 2008
Gaming the Mortgage System
Paul Gigot’s OpEd in the July 23, 2008, Wall Street Journal is a self-righteous diatribe against the usual demons of the paper—“journalists on the left and pseudo-capitalists on Wall Street,” “liberal Democrats and country-club Republicans.” Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in fact established in 1938 and 1970 to help expand home ownership in the U.S. by well-meaning Democrats who controlled Congress. They were extremely successful in supporting broad family wealth creation, but they also provided large temptations to smart operators for gaming the mortgage system.
Nevertheless, Mr. Gigot does make a valid point, if with too much umbrage. Franklin Raines, with sterling Democratic credentials and recognized Wall Street talents, fell prey to the possibility of reaping outsized rewards from making Fannie Mae a darling of speculators on the real estate boom. In this period of “irrational exuberance,” Angelo Mozilo and his cohorts skillfully took advantage of the non-market intervention power legislatively granted to the two home-mortgage guarantors. Barney Frank, Paul Krugman and other Fan and Fred defenders are indubitably mistaken, probably innocently, for not acknowledging that any insertion of government regulation into the machinery of the market offers clever financiers an opportunity to profit from the unintended consequences.
Paul Gigot’s OpEd in the July 23, 2008, Wall Street Journal is a self-righteous diatribe against the usual demons of the paper—“journalists on the left and pseudo-capitalists on Wall Street,” “liberal Democrats and country-club Republicans.” Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in fact established in 1938 and 1970 to help expand home ownership in the U.S. by well-meaning Democrats who controlled Congress. They were extremely successful in supporting broad family wealth creation, but they also provided large temptations to smart operators for gaming the mortgage system.
Nevertheless, Mr. Gigot does make a valid point, if with too much umbrage. Franklin Raines, with sterling Democratic credentials and recognized Wall Street talents, fell prey to the possibility of reaping outsized rewards from making Fannie Mae a darling of speculators on the real estate boom. In this period of “irrational exuberance,” Angelo Mozilo and his cohorts skillfully took advantage of the non-market intervention power legislatively granted to the two home-mortgage guarantors. Barney Frank, Paul Krugman and other Fan and Fred defenders are indubitably mistaken, probably innocently, for not acknowledging that any insertion of government regulation into the machinery of the market offers clever financiers an opportunity to profit from the unintended consequences.
15 July 2008
Opinion Leaders Don't Usually Win Elections
On 15 July 2008, Ariana Huffington complimented the Reverend Martin Luther King for his unwillingness to compromise principles: "There comes a time when one must take the position that is neither safe nor politic nor popular, but he must do it because conscience tells him it is right."That quote sums up why Martin Luther King would never have been elected President. We need opinion leaders to inspire us to change our views and behavior; we need political leaders effectively to carry out the will of the people. I believe it is the will of the people to hear opinion leaders like Dr. King, General DeGaulle, Senator Hagel, yes, and Ariana Huffington--not necessarily to follow them. Sensitivity to the pace of change in the will of the people is a defining attribute of successful political leadership. So Ariana should keep holding Senator Obama's feet to the fire; but we can't expect him to win in November unless he also listens to contrary points of view and nurtures the transformation of conventional wisdom that most of us hope is coming.
On 15 July 2008, Ariana Huffington complimented the Reverend Martin Luther King for his unwillingness to compromise principles: "There comes a time when one must take the position that is neither safe nor politic nor popular, but he must do it because conscience tells him it is right."That quote sums up why Martin Luther King would never have been elected President. We need opinion leaders to inspire us to change our views and behavior; we need political leaders effectively to carry out the will of the people. I believe it is the will of the people to hear opinion leaders like Dr. King, General DeGaulle, Senator Hagel, yes, and Ariana Huffington--not necessarily to follow them. Sensitivity to the pace of change in the will of the people is a defining attribute of successful political leadership. So Ariana should keep holding Senator Obama's feet to the fire; but we can't expect him to win in November unless he also listens to contrary points of view and nurtures the transformation of conventional wisdom that most of us hope is coming.
04 July 2008
Obama on FISA
Senator Barack Obama's statement today on revising the FISA law is a reasonable compromise that is the sort of policy stance that he needs to take in order to win the White House. The compromise measure provides that telephone carriers cannot be prosecuted for violating privacy if they administered wiretapping of their customers at the direction of the Federal Government.
We can't rely on telecommunications companies to enforce the Constitution on the President. Our laws have given the President the authority to regulate those companies. It is up to the public, Congress and, ultimately, the Courts to regulate actions by the President. FISA recognizes that order of things. It appears that Obama understands this. He deserves electoral support in November in the expectation that his Administration will act circumspectly when it comes to surveillance of threats to our security.
Senator Barack Obama's statement today on revising the FISA law is a reasonable compromise that is the sort of policy stance that he needs to take in order to win the White House. The compromise measure provides that telephone carriers cannot be prosecuted for violating privacy if they administered wiretapping of their customers at the direction of the Federal Government.
We can't rely on telecommunications companies to enforce the Constitution on the President. Our laws have given the President the authority to regulate those companies. It is up to the public, Congress and, ultimately, the Courts to regulate actions by the President. FISA recognizes that order of things. It appears that Obama understands this. He deserves electoral support in November in the expectation that his Administration will act circumspectly when it comes to surveillance of threats to our security.
03 July 2008
Why We Were Led Into War in Iraq
Douglas Feith gave five factors of influence on President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq in his OpEd article, “Why We Went to War in Iraq,” that appeared in the July 3, 2008, Wall Street Journal. The best that can be said for those factors is that they are a good rationalization of Bush’s mistake. Indeed, the President may have felt he had no choice but to commit life and treasure to overthrowing Saddam Hussein; but that sheds no light on the issue.
What President Bush did choose to do was to convince Congress and the American public that they had no choice either. His poor judgment brought us into a mess there. Preventing zealous salesmanship of such a mistaken decision is the real issue.
Douglas Feith gave five factors of influence on President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq in his OpEd article, “Why We Went to War in Iraq,” that appeared in the July 3, 2008, Wall Street Journal. The best that can be said for those factors is that they are a good rationalization of Bush’s mistake. Indeed, the President may have felt he had no choice but to commit life and treasure to overthrowing Saddam Hussein; but that sheds no light on the issue.
What President Bush did choose to do was to convince Congress and the American public that they had no choice either. His poor judgment brought us into a mess there. Preventing zealous salesmanship of such a mistaken decision is the real issue.
