As it continues to crumble...

George Will: The results of elections, including theocratic elements, may be markedly unlovely. That may break the big hearts of those in the U.S. government who hope for a luminously liberal democracy to shame the entire Middle East into emulation, thereby justifying the war originally justified primarily by the threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. But pursuit of that ideal can impede achievement of something tolerable: a stable, perhaps illiberal, even authoritarian Iraq which cooperates in the war against terrorism. Call this an exit strategy.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 8:53 AM

Thursday, April 29, 2004

As the coalition crumbles...

Daniel Pipes: Imperialists are guiding U.S. policy toward Iraq, where they see a unique opportunity not just to rehabilitate that country but to spread American ways through the Middle East. And nationalists find themselves, as usual, somewhere in between. They sympathize with the imperial vision but worry about its practicalities and consequences. As patriots, they take pride in American accomplishments and hope U.S. influence will spread. But they have two worries: that the outside world is not ready to Americanize and Americans are unwilling to spend the blood and treasure to carry off an imperial mission. Huntington is clearly a nationalist. Less clearly, so am I. I believe the U.S. goal in Iraq should be more narrowly restricted to protecting American interests. I hope the Iraqi population benefits from the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and can make a fresh start, while rejecting the rehabilitation of Iraq as the standard by which to judge the American venture there. The U.S. military machine is not an instrument for social work, nor for remaking the world. It is, rather, the primary means by which Americans protect themselves from external violent threats. The U.S. goal cannot be a free Iraq, but an Iraq that does not endanger Americans.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 8:43 AM

Inevitable outcome?

Persistent media and Democratic war opposition have finally brought forth poll results showing near-Vietnam-levels of opposition to the war in Iraq. The crankier students of Samuel Huntington (e.g. Benjamin Barber) seem fond of pointing out how absolutism always wins any struggle with relativism. The sophisticated relativist strikes postures while savoring all the delicious nuances -- meanwhile, the absolutists sneak up and blow his brains out because he is evil.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 6:59 AM

Wednesday, April 28, 2004

The Big Mac Theory of Cosmic Justice

Some time ago Thomas Sowell argued US enlightened culture increasingly demands not merely social justice and fair play, but justice of the cosmic variety. This is easy to understand in terms of McDonald's, Big Macs, Quarter Pounders, and the like. For Western Civilization, it appears social justice is something like an "income superior" good. The richer we are, the more just a society we wish to live in. Thus the apparent contradiction of the Heinz/Soros/Kennedy/ Democrat Bloc -- you know, rich folks seeking massive social justice thru Democratic Administration. Where do the Bic Macs come in? Well, just as we're the first society in world history so rich we have an obesity health crisis, so we may soon become the first society so enamored with social justice and civil liberties we may lose much of our self-defense capability by ceding Executive Branch wartime powers to the Judiciary: Last week's oral argument in the case of non-Americans being held at Guantanamo was not encouraging. At issue was whether the 600 detainees seized in Afghanistan and Pakistan during operations against the Taliban can have access to the federal courts through habeas corpus petitions. The questions from the bench--Justice O'Connor's especially--suggest that the Justices are inclined to let the courts step in. If so, for the first time in U.S. history foreigners captured and held outside the country could ask a federal judge to review their status. Thousands of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan could be affected. Perhaps Saddam Hussein would like to submit a habeas petition to the Ninth Circuit? The outcome of Hamdi and Padilla is equally important and potentially just as disruptive of the President's ability to wage war. In an age when a single terrorist has the potential to cause thousands of American deaths, the task of identifying and detaining the enemy is more critical than ever. Imagine if the federal government had to argue its way through an ACLU petition and the courts every time it wants to detain someone as an enemy combatant. The delay and disruption could cost lives. To put it another way, these cases present the clash of two Constitutional principles--the right of judicial review colliding with the Presidential obligation to protect and defend America. Throughout U.S. history, the courts have deferred to the executive on matters of war and national preservation. If a President does overstep his powers, at least he is accountable to voters through the ballot box. Judges appointed for life are not.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 5:37 AM

On Kerry

James Ridgeway: "[It[ may be only a matter of time until political insiders in Washington face the dread reality that the junior senator from Massachusetts doesn't have what it takes to win and has got to go. As arrogant and out of it as the Democratic political establishment is, even these pols know the party's got to have someone to run against George Bush. They can't exactly expect the president to self-destruct into thin air. With growing issues over his wealth (which makes fellow plutocrat Bush seem a charity case by comparison), the miasma over his medals and ribbons (or ribbons and medals), his uninspiring record in the Senate (yes war, no war), and wishy-washy efforts to mimic Bill Clinton's triangulation gimmickry (the protractor factor), Kerry sinks day by day. The pros all know that the candidate who starts each morning by having to explain himself is a goner. What to do? Look for the Dem biggies, whoever they are these days, to sit down with the rich and arrogant presumptive nominee and try to persuade him to take a hike. Then they can return to business as usual -- resurrecting John Edwards, who is still hanging around, or staging an open convention in Boston, or both. Glenn Reynolds: "Message to Republicans: Don't get cocky. Kerry can't possibly do this badly for the entire campaign." EconoPundit: Message to Glenn -- Impossible to do this badly for the duration? Perhaps. Unlikely to get "much better"? Seems increasingly credible.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 5:13 AM

Tuesday, April 27, 2004

More on Game Theory

Apparently my personal issues with game theory resonate quite noticeably in certain circles. Consider this fabulous story, which we'd never have heard had I not come clean on the subject: I was quite amused with your comment that you hate game theory because I despise it, but when Truck & Barter responded I couldn't resist providing my theory on the topic. Basically, (and I mean absolutely no disrespect here) I think it boils down to the profs that teach game theory in economics courses. For some reason profs that like game theory REALLY like it. While getting a Masters in economics at Columbia, I took a micro course with a prof that wrote a book on GT. So the class was all GT, all the time. Countless hours spent in the bowels of the library working out all the various equilibria. The best was the midterm. It was 80% GT. About halfway through some guy starts giggling and pretty soon, the entire class was cracking up. I'm glad there was only a TA there because I would have felt bad for the prof. The reason everyone was laughing: the average score was about 30% and I'm sure we got most of the non-GT stuff right. The GT was so absurd it was funny. I had a similar experience in another class, but not quite as bad. This contrasts with many poli sci courses (my undergrad major) I have taken which use game theory (econ and poli sci are the only two disciplines I can think of that actually use GT). Here, you basically do prisoner dilemma scenarios or simplified cost-benefit grid comparisons without having to do 4 hours of math to get to an answer. Poli sci uses of GT show you relatively practical, easy to understand examples and are therefore marginally useful. Many econ profs I have come across focus on the actual calculations, rather than practical uses which severely limits its usefullness to almost anyone outside academia. UPDATE: Just to complete my side of the story and in the name of full disclosure, we had a 70 minute session last night in which certain basics of zero, constant sum, and other games were laid out. Prisoner's dilemma was also discussed, as was the objective of linear programming as it applies to game theory. We did not do any linear programming, though. (At the blackboard, I draw the line at matrix inversion and proving Cramer's rule.)

Link posted by Steve Antler : 10:55 AM

Numerous posting opportunities from this source...

This says it well: John Kerry has become, at least for the blogosphere if not for the GOP, the gift that keeps on giving. You know all the waffling, the reversals, the "I actually voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it" nonsense that we must actually treat seriously because, well, he is the de facto Democratic nominee. Via Glenn Reynolds.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 9:05 AM

False Class Consciousness Revisited

Lots to think about here. Are the blue states those places where social justice, as an income-superior good, gets "purchased" by support for Democrats? Is this very same support fundamentally unstable -- historically sure to decline -- because (owing to cost of living discrepancies) it contradicts the basic economic interests of those living in high-cost blue states? UPDATE: Thanks to Michael Schwenk, who pointed out that -- perhaps owing to some neurological malfunction? -- I had reversed the red and blue states in my first draft of this post! (And I spelled "Cheney" wrong in another post as well. This is not my day.)

Link posted by Steve Antler : 8:28 AM

Cheney Energy Task Force

I know the basics, but the subtext here is really disturbing: A nearly three-year fight over privacy in White House policy-making is going before a Supreme Court known for guarding its own secrecy. Justices were being asked by the Bush administration Tuesday to let it keep private the records of Vice President Dick Cheney's work on a national energy strategy...Watchdog group Judicial Watch and the environmental group Sierra Club want the task force papers made public to see what influence energy industries had in outlining national energy policy...The Sierra Club accused the administration of shutting environmentalists out of the meetings while catering to energy industry executives and lobbyists. What Cheney produced was a document. A booklet. A brochure. A small white paper. It wasn't even draft legislation. For all practical purposes, it had the same legal status as postings on this blog. What business is it of anyone who was present at the meetings that produced it? (If you don't like the report, well heck, just don't support its recommendations!) Is it the position of Sierra Club and Judical Watch that each and every meeting held by every Vice President must have representatives of all possible points of view on any issue to be discussed? UPDATE: Oh please! I finally get around to the unpleasant task of checking up on Krugman and what do I find but that he's written his whole column on this nonsense today!

Link posted by Steve Antler : 6:58 AM

Can this possibly be true?

Is Chicago the only major American city without an East Side? UPDATE: Dave Ivers writes: Jeez, Antler. My wife's grandmother lived on Chicago's East Side. It's south of the South Side. Down by Gary and Wolf Lake. It was originally, I think, an Eastern European, shot-and-a-beer steel plant neighborhood (they worked at what was to become LTV Steel). It's a Ditka kinda neighborhood. Or at least a mini-Ditka neighborhood. (Reference to Da Fans of SNL fame. They were from the East Side. Obviously. Over by dere. Wanna go with? [or wid?] Dem. Dose. etc.) Know your neighborhoods. EconoPundit responds: I know there are some places with "East Something" addresses on the far South Side -- but, uh, isn't that the South Side? UPDATE: Dave Anderson sends this addition: Read in your blog about East Chicago being south of Chicago. There's a similar anomaly in Minnesota. West St. Paul is actually due south of St. Paul. EconoPundit responds: Yes, but the possibility of a literal "East Side" of Chicago keeps capturing the imagination. If it existed, it would be in Lake Michigan! Just like Atlantis! I need to get back to game theory...

Link posted by Steve Antler : 6:48 AM

Saturday, April 24, 2004

Perhaps it is only metaphor...

Some time ago I pointed out a simple cultural/historical fact: the Arab World, while rightly credited for its scholarship in the middle ages, never experienced the same domination by Greek culture as did the Jews during post-Alexander Hellenic Judaism. (Find the argument and links here and here.) This, it seems pretty clear to many scholars, gives rise to distinct contrasts between Western and Islamic cultures when it comes to certain basic matters -- like, for example, how we define "true" and "false." Keep that in mind as you read this. Also note the argument emanates from a widely respected journalist published in an official government newspaper.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 6:42 AM

All that remains is to somehow link this to Whitewater and Monica...

What's seen by the left as an ongoing Clinton witch hunt continues. And face it -- on the surface, it certainly look like (1) the Clinton Justice Department adopted an inapprpriate level of politically correctness after the first World Trade Center bombing and (2) two Democratic members of the 9/11 Commission are there for nothing more than to deflect all investigation of same: What is clear is that for some reason the nature and height of "the wall" underwent a qualitative change in the 1990s, as any investigator or prosecutor who dealt with it now says. Whereas previous interpretations of the FISA statute had limited the ability of prosecutors to produce certain intelligence in court, the new rules effectively prohibited people from communicating at all. There seems to have been destructive tension among Justice, the FBI, and the lower FISA court at the time of the 1995 memo, tension that may in the end explain Ms. Gorelick's behavior. But we won't have a clear picture until she and some of the other major players--including members of the FISA court--testify. The 9/11 Commissioners are only undermining their own credibility in rallying to Ms. Gorelick's defense. Her conflict of interest can't be solved merely by recusing herself from discreet portions of the probe, since as a Commissioner she will still serve as judge and jury on everyone else in government. She should have recused herself entirely from even questioning John Ashcroft. We also take no comfort in Republican Orrin Hatch's endorsement, since one of Ms. Gorelick's former law partners represented him in the BCCI case and he whisked her through Senate confirmation in 1994.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 6:16 AM

Gotta read, take notes...

Light blogging this weekend. The Monday night kids want a full lecture on game theory. I HATE game theory. UPDATE: The author of that great econoblog Truck and Barter sends us this note: Please expand on this idea; the world desperately needs an explanation of why game theory deserves to be hated. Simply put, I think the concepts of GT are great developments, and are necessary equipment for the strategic mind, but I more frequently need to build a Mayan pyramid than I need to apply rigorous quantitative game-theoretic methods. EconoPundit responds: I don't think game theory deserves to be hated -- it's just that I happen to hate it, merits or demerits notwithstanding. Excuse me, I'm right in the midst of building a Mayan pyramid.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 5:41 AM

Friday, April 23, 2004

It just doesn't add up...

North Korea, we're told in this report, is "not the Orwellian society George Bush and much of the media is trying to portray:" Much is written about the alleged starvation, even referred to as intentional, of the North Korean people by their government. On our trips in the countryside, both north and south of Pyongyang, we covered nearly 500 kilometers. During that time we had the opportunity to see agricultural communities and small towns. We noticed that the people on the whole looked well dressed and active. We saw no one who looked malnourished or emaciated and our observations were confirmed by many of the foreigners we met who had dealings around the country. The DPRK has very little are able land and we saw crops being harvested everywhere it was possible to grow them. It appears every square inch of arable land is cultivated, and on the roofs of their country cottages people had planted vines of what looked like melons or squash. The people we passed on the road or in rural towns looked relaxed. The images of children heading to school or playing, or women sitting side saddle on bikes as their husbands pedaled, provided human moments that make war unthinkable. No one seemed dispirited or broken. If this is all true, why is major international aid being requested by North Korea's leaders in the face of a moderate industrial accident? Via Milt Rosenberg.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 7:44 PM

When everything is finally made illegal we will all be criminals...

Thomas Sowell doubts new laws will solve the problem of asymmetrical information: Liberals like to equate crime in the streets with "crime in the suites." But nobody is afraid to go out at night in their own neighborhood for fear that Martha Stewart will sell them some stock. The verbal parallels of the left have little to do with the realities of life. Recent decades have seen the criminalization of everything from foreign policy to farm practices that inconvenience some worm or toad. Donating money to political candidates has become so enmeshed in criminal laws that the advantage is given to those who can afford to pay lawyers to tell them how to avoid getting trapped -- or even how to circumvent the intentions of the law. When your response to everything that is wrong with the world is to say, "there ought to be a law," you are saying that you hold freedom very cheap.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 10:23 AM

An analogy...

Millions, perhaps billions of dollars would be saved every year if we immediately moved from celluloid-based cinema projection systems to digital. A single movie requires about five to ten reels of heavy, expensive, resource-intensive and environmentally unfriendly celluloid for each showing. I think we're looking at about $5,000 in duplication/materials/transportation/storage costs for each copy struck. Multiply this by tens of thousands of cinema venues and you're spending lots on celluloid to go along with the popcorn. Move to digital and everything changes. A single movie, downloaded in a few hours via broadband, is stored temporarily on a hard drive. The DLP projector uses the same energy as a celluloid projector, but without the thousands of dollars of celluloid cost. Massive savings. No question. So why aren't we showing DLP movies everywhere? The answer lies partly in initial cost, partly in intellectual property rights, partly in vested interest in the current system. Moving from celluloid to digital will create many winners and losers. Getting from "here" to "there" is the process of all these parties slowly, slowly working things out. Now consider this question: why doesn't everyone have health insurance? Here's something to think about: It's not that Americans don't want to cover the 41 million uninsured. And the cost, pegged by Kaiser Commission on Medicaid & the Uninsured at less than $69 billion a year, isn't insurmountable, adding just 6% to annual health spending. The problem is this: any of the many solutions automatically creates benefits and costs -- that is, losers and gainers. Managing the loss/gain that accompanies moving from here to there is the real problem.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 7:45 AM

EconoPundit Predicts...

this person will wind up in a court as an aggrieved, heroic "whistle-blower." I know she probably signed away some rights. I bet it won't matter.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 7:28 AM

Breaking the myth of false class consciousness...

What first attracted me to the American Conservative movement in the late 80's was George Will insisting US voters are actually smart enough to see thru political rhetoric and decide things correctly for themselves. Here, Krauthammer continues the theme: No one can understand how, with the president being pummeled daily on the front pages by Richard Clarke, the Sept. 11 hearings, the Woodward book, and the eruption of Iraq into open warfare again, Bush nonetheless has gained over Kerry on the issue of national security...The answer is simple: Americans are a serious people, war is a serious business, and what John Kerry is offering is simply not serious. Americans may be unsure whether Bush has a plan for success in Iraq. But they sure as hell know that going to U.N. headquarters, visiting foreign capitals and promising lots of jaw-jaw is no plan at all.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 6:44 AM

Honest mistake? Maybe. But then again I'm not running for President...

It is hard to find excuses for this. After the Winter Soldier fraudulent testimony revelations, it seems fair to ask to what degree Kerry may somehow be channelling someone else's Vietnam memories: The reports at issue are in a 20-page batch representing Kerry's combat in January 1969. The reports include references to some dramatic action, including an ambush of Patrol Craft Fast, or PCF, 94. In addition to posting the information online, the campaign sent out an e-mail yesterday afternoon repeating the claim that Kerry was the skipper of the 94 boat throughout January and describing action the campaign said Kerry experienced while commanding the craft. For example, in a summary of action that occurred Jan. 26, 1969, the campaign says Kerry served on boat No. 94 alongside another boat, No. 66. "PCFs 94 and 66 escorted troops up the Ong Doc River early in the morning when they were ambushed by gun and rocket fire from approximately 40 men on both sides of the river," the campaign summary says. "Two B-40 rounds hit close to Kerry's boat, while PCF 66 received 2 B-40 rocket hits. Three men on PCF66 were wounded. A junk containing South Vietnamese troops was also sunk, killing 11 South Vietnamese troops. Intelligence reports after the mission indicated that the Viet Cong troops may have planned the ambush in advance." Peck said he was the skipper of the 94 at this time and that Kerry was not on the craft. While combat reports show several boats traveling with the 94, the campaign website says only that Kerry was the skipper of the 94 and does not try to place him on the other boats.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 6:34 AM

Report from the Academy...

Why is this poll so very unsurprising? Here's a summary: A poll of 100 US academics with advanced degrees in Middle East studies reveals concern over proposed Israeli plans to withdraw from Gaza. Negotiations underway between the White House and an Israeli delegation are discussing possible US recognition or approval of Israeli annexation of territories and settlements seized by Israel in the 1967 war. In exchange, Israel would unilaterally withdraw from Gaza. 96% of the Middle East experts polled believe the US has neither the authority nor the international credibility to approve such an arrangement. 81% believe such a deal could increase terror attacks in the Middle East while 75% believe attacks on the US would increase if such an exchange is approved by the Bush administration.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 6:23 AM

Romanticized victimology...

In my nearly twenty years in Newfoundland I became convinced there were strong parallels between the then-current US Northern-Cities-African-American experience and that of poorer isolated communities in Canada. One saw the same victimology, similar inappropriately adapted radical politics masking corrupt leadership, and most important, the same firm committment to a welfare state that perpetuated virtually all the communities' problems. Check this out. In romatic, idealized form all the facts are there.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 6:08 AM

Wednesday, April 21, 2004

If it walks like a duck and quacks...

We are taking baby steps toward an inevitable public redefinition of terms -- and it is about time. First read this short essay: Why is it fair game to question conservatives' love or loyalty to children or to their fellow man, but beyond the pale to question liberals' love of country?...I think liberal defensiveness sometimes undermines their case. After all, if I angrily asked, "Are you saying I'm gay?" as often as liberals say, "Are you questioning my patriotism?" a lot of people would think I'm hiding something. Then, consider whether we should start using the expression "patriotism in the conventional sense?" US patriotism as the word has historically been used always involves high comfort levels with respect to the US Armed Forces and their varying missions. Isn't it -- as Jonah Goldberg suggests using other words -- about time we started dividing the world into those who are and are not conventionally patriotic? UPDATE: Oh yeah, I forgot. Some of us have already started!

Link posted by Steve Antler : 12:51 PM

Yet another conflict of interest...

Who is the sole General Counsel of the 9/11 Commission? Here's the answer: The general counsel is Daniel Marcus, and, as the commission's website details, his Democratic roots run deep, and prominent. In the Carter adminstration, he was a lawyer for executive-branch agencies, including a term as general counsel of the Agriculture Department. After that, Marcus was for many years, until 1998, a partner -- and ultimately part of the management committee -- at the Washington law firm of Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering. That is the firm at which Gorelick became a partner in 2003. Marcus had left the firm by then, in 1998 to be precise. That was when, during the high pitch of the impeachment scandal, President Clinton made him senior counsel in the White House Counsel's Office -- an entity, you may recall, whose sense of the defensible when it came to behavior by public officials was somewhat elastic. Via Milt Rosenberg.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 10:29 AM

The story starts showing her beautiful legs...

No disrespect intended to the blogger community, which has known about all this stuff for so long I can't remember when it all started, but I think the big story here is that ABC News says it has found a smoking gun proving basic UN corruption. Once again, that's ABC News. We say it a third time -- ABC News: In the letter, dated Aug, 10, 1998, an Iraqi oil executive mentions a request by a Panama-based company, African Middle East Petroleum Co., to buy Iraqi oil -- along with a suggestion that Sevan had a role in the deal. "Mr. Muwafaq Ayoub of the Iraqi mission in New York informed us by telephone that the abovementioned company is the company that Mr. Sevan cited to you during his last trip to Baghdad," the executive wrote in Arabic. A handwritten note indicated that permission for the oil purchase was granted by "the Vice President of the Republic" on Aug. 15, 1998. The second page of the letter contains a table entitled "Quantity of Oil Allocated and Given to Mr. Benon Sevan." The table lists a total of 7.3 million barrels of oil as the "quantity executed" -- an amount that, if true, would have generated an illegal profit of as much as $3.5 million. "Somebody who is running the Oil-for-Food program for the United Nations should not be receiving any benefit of any kind from a rogue dictator who was perpetuating terror in his country," said Hankes-Drielsma. Via Glenn Reynolds and Roger L. Simon.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 6:51 AM

Tuesday, April 20, 2004

What's the subtext?

A very good friend (who just turned 60 -- happy birthday from EconoPundit!) sends us this link on Ike's reluctance to reverse New Deal rates of taxation: In 1953, the year Ike took office as president, some Americans -- wealthy Americans -- were clamoring furiously for a tax cut. These deep pockets at the time faced an amazing 92 percent tax rate on their incomes over $400,000, a level that would equal about $2.8 million in today's dollars. Overall, on their total incomes, the wealthy back then didn't pay taxes at a rate anywhere near 92 percent. But even so, they still paid taxes at a hefty rate. In 1953, IRS records show, America's richest 2,000 households paid 58 percent of their incomes in federal tax. These high-income households figured their fortunes would turn -- and soar -- after Mr. Eisenhower's election. New Deal tax rates, they figured, soon would be history. They were wrong. Ike refused, for his entire eight years in office, to lead any charge against New Deal tax rates. The top tax rate on America's highest incomes would remain over 90 percent until 1964, when the top rate slid to 77 percent, then to 70 percent the next year. The current top rate? Only 35 percent. I have no reason to dispute any of this. Ike was above all a war leader and general, author of the phrase and first to warn against the "military industrial complex," and no enemy to the idea big government could accomplish big things. But that was then and this is now and the most interesting question involves the subtext of the Baltimore Sun article. As written, the article reflects the clear belief the very purpose of federal taxation and expenditure is not to provide public goods, but rather to control income and wealth at the topmost levels. The author writes as if the earning of large income and enjoyment of wealth were crimes, and as if progressive income taxation were part of the criminal justice system. Thus the "gotcha" -- ha! top rates are now only 35 percent! So there! There are always questions which answer themselves. The question "Are the fat cats paying their fair share?" elicits one set of answers while summoning up its own unique mindset. If the argument is phrased in terms of public goods provision rather than income distribution, things change considerably and alternate self-answering questions become appropriate. Questions like: "Does goverment waste your tax dollars?", or "Who knows best how to spend your income: you, or the federal government?" -- elicit their own unique set of answers. And the mindset summoned up by these answers is quite different from that described immediately above. UPDATE: Comment from Bruce Bartlett: It's true [Eisenhower] didn't cut taxes and strenuously fought efforts by the Republican Congress to do so, which is a key reason why Republicans lost control in 1954 and didn't regain it for another 40 years. Also, Eisenhower pretty much delivered the presidency to JFK, who said he would "get the economy moving again" by cutting taxes. Nixon could not make a similar promise without appearing disloyal. Furthermore, if you check the data, you will see that growth was pretty anemic in the 1950s, with 2 recessions on Eisenhower's watch. A pretty dismal record, in my opinion.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 8:44 AM

Monday, April 19, 2004

Battle of the Scandals

All the angry, indignant yelping about blood for oil and Haliburton has for some time been counterpoised against a real scandal -- one which is now being covered up by those with an interest in, as we used to say, keeping the lid on.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 9:29 AM

Saturday, April 17, 2004

The times, they are a-changing...

Here's Ron Klain -- yes, Al Gore's former Chief of Staff -- writing in the LA Times (registration required): During a debate in the 2000 primary campaign, the GOP candidates were asked to name the philosopher who had most affected their lives. Bush's answer was unique: Jesus Christ. As a senior advisor to Al Gore at the time, I recall the reaction in Democratic circles: laughter and disbelief. Bush was seen as a dunce at best, a panderer at worst. "George Bush probably can't even name a philosopher," was repeated so often in progressive circles that it became a theme. How could such an "uneducated person" win? And yet, for countless independent and swing voters, Bush's invocation of divine inspiration said far more about his values — and how much they were in line with their own — than it did about any gaps in his Yale course work. In the United States, a person who has knowledge must be respected. But someone who shares our values can be trusted. And the choice of a president is ultimately about trust more than respect. In regard to the ongoing presidential campaign and the president's citation of divine inspiration for his Iraq policy, Democrats need to avoid falling into this same trap again. Yes, there is much to criticize in the president's statement. Is he hypocritical to embrace a broad view of God-given rights when, during the 2000 campaign, he scoffed at Clinton-Gore efforts to promote freedom around the world? You bet. Is he myopic in seeing these issues only in some disfavored regimes, while ignoring the thirst for freedom in so many other countries? Absolutely. Is it wrong for the president to have sold the war to the American people on one basis (the search for weapons of mass destruction) and now defend its prosecution on a different basis (the promotion of human freedom)? Undoubtedly. But at the same time, progressives should not belittle the notion that American foreign policy will support the objective of promoting God-given freedoms around the world. There is plenty of intellectual elitism in both parties, but in political terms, it's an arrogance that the Democrats would be well-advised to resist. Rather than laughing at the president's invocation of the notion of natural rights to justify his policies in Iraq, Democrats should make it abundantly clear that they share the president's view that all humans are created free and are entitled to enjoy the benefit of that innate freedom. After all, wasn't the idea of an "unalienable" right to liberty put into writing in 1776 by the father of the Democratic Party, Thomas Jefferson? And more recently, haven't these been the ideals that Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Gore pursued around the world — often with great derision from conservatives? Instead of belittling the president's reliance on the Almighty, Democrats should make clear that we share the president's goals but think that his methods have been deeply flawed. The mission may be from above, but the planning has been from someplace else. (Emphasis added)

Link posted by Steve Antler : 12:20 PM

Friday, April 16, 2004

Today's rant, tomorrow's propaganda...

Tokyo Paul strikes again. In a matter of hours anti-U.S. websites can be depended on to repackage these words as proof ("even critics in the U.S. say...") the upcoming elections will be rigged: Some say that Iraq isn't Vietnam because we've come to bring democracy, not to support a corrupt regime. But idealistic talk is cheap. In Vietnam, U.S. officials never said, "We're supporting a corrupt regime." They said they were defending democracy. The rest of the world, and the Iraqis themselves, will believe in America's idealistic intentions if and when they see a legitimate, noncorrupt Iraqi government -- as opposed to, say, a rigged election that puts Ahmad Chalabi in charge. Okay, let's get down to it. Am I saying Paul Krugman is unpatriotic? Heck. If it walks like a duck and quacks, face it, it's a duck. No amount of denial -- saying for example, real ducks bark, the proof of somebody really being a duck is to bark -- makes a dog a duck.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 9:51 AM

Thursday, April 15, 2004

"yes, the rhet'ric goes 'round and 'round, oh-o oh-o, oh-o and it comes out here..."

This war makes millions of dollars for big corporations, either weapons manufacturers or those working in the reconstruction [of Iraq], such as Halliburton and its sister companies... It is crystal clear who benefits from igniting the fire of this war and this bloodshed: They are the merchants of war, the bloodsuckers who run the policy of the world from behind the scenes. President Bush and his ilk, the media giants, and the U.N. ... all are a fatal danger to the world, and the Zionist lobby is their most dangerous member. Allah willing, we will persist in fighting them... All they left out was the Florida recount, but I suspect that will be included in the next draft. UPDATE: Round out your reading with this.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 1:40 PM

Kerry proposes tax cut for Heinz?

Was there a shred of truth to the charge "it's all about oil?" Is there any truth to the trope "tax cut for the rich?" Was Steve Forbes really pushing a flat tax to lower his own taxes? And what about this new wrinkle on the Kerry tax plan: The Kerry team...added a loophole [to the Kerry tax plan]. If a U.S. multinational produces a product in a foreign country for consumption in that country, then they will continue to allow the firm to avoid U.S. tax until the money is mailed back home. Some industries, like food production, [typically] locate a separate plant in each country that they serve. Chief among these is Heinz, which owns 57 plants outside of North America... Heinz is so successful at capturing local markets that, according to form 10-K, almost 84 percent of its income from continuing operations came from foreign markets in 2003. Accordingly, the impact of the Kerry plan on that company's value would be tremendous. If we assume that deferring U.S. tax on their foreign income saves them the difference between the U.S. tax and the average foreign tax, then that adds up to annual savings of about $43 million. With a P/E ratio of 19.35, that means that absent the loophole, the firm's market value would drop by about $832 million upon passage of the Kerry tax plan. Assuming that the Kerry-Heinz family's share of the company is four percent, which is the upper limit of what has been reported, then this loophole saves Mr. Kerry's family around $33 million. It is easy to see why they might support this loophole, but hard to see why anyone else would.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 11:52 AM

Seems like it is taking forever...

Via Milt Rosenberg, the Columbia Journalism Review tackles digital TV. Meanwhile we wait, and wait, and wait for the world's first HDTV Tivo.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 5:47 AM

No, maybe the problem is you're not making yourself clear...

You voted for this," Daum shouted. As he spoke, a group stood silently and unfurled a large sign that read, "Kerry take a stand: Troops out now." "You're not listening," an exasperated Kerry said at one point. The essential points are all present in the above story. (1) Kerry thinks he's smarter than Bush, so Kerry should be president, and (2) anyone who disagrees with Kerry just isn't listening hard enough.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 5:20 AM

In Memoriam Air America

Here's the Tribune Air America story. I was expecting more juicy details, but there's not much new here.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 5:15 AM

Wednesday, April 14, 2004

No longer general agreement on certain rules...

Last Sunday we saw Regina Taylor's Crowns at the Goodman Theater here in Chicago. I wasn't going to post anything on this, but in relation to this major piece in American Digest (via Glenn Reynolds) I thought I'd put in the two cents I originally intended to keep in my pocket. As Crowns is presented at the Goodman, there occur two instances in which African American characters humourously imitate the accents and adenoidal qualities of white peoples' speaking voices. I suppose I wasn't offended in the literal sense -- I know my voice has a honky quality compared with that of most African Americans -- but the jokes did make me feel what's usually called "uncomfortable." More to the point, it seemed perfectly clear the same jokes with races reversed would have been way over the line -- not just inappropriate, but racist and unacceptable.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 11:54 AM

No minds will be changed, but...

New JEC report on progressivity of income tax. Those who see the US system as basically unfair to begin with won't change their minds because of this information. The real question is the average voter: does he or she think 46% of all income earned paying over 80% of all income taxes is fair or unfair -- and if the latter, in which direction?

Link posted by Steve Antler : 11:13 AM

Tuesday, April 13, 2004

U.S. Class War

John Samples in National Review Online: ...making war on the wealthy will not win many [U.S.] elections. The liberal concern about inequality is not widely shared in the United States. Three scholars from Harvard and the London School of Economics recently analyzed attitudes toward inequality in Europe and here. In Europe, surveys have found that inequality of wealth makes two groups unhappy: rich leftists and the poor. By contrast, only rich leftists are troubled by inequality in the United States. The three professors argue that the poor in the U.S. are not concerned about inequality of wealth because they expect to rise up the income ladder whereas Europeans feel stuck in their assigned status in society. Americans do not resent the rich; Americans want and expect to be like them thanks to social mobility. The American Dream lives on except for wealthy progressives.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 1:53 PM

Listening to static is better?

Reader Jose Mendez sends us to this article, which reports the results of a poll to which we can't find links yet. Anyway read the article for details and here's one way to summarize the poll results: ----------REGARDING AIR AMERICA---------------------- Host======Worthwhile or Worth a Try=====Static is Better CHUCK D=========30%==============70%======= AL FRANKEN=======45%==============55%======= JANEANE GAROFALO=38%==============62%======= ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please note we've been as friendly to Air America as possible here -- we've lumped together the "worth a try" and "worth listening to," in other words. Results are unpromising, and I have the distinct feeling Air America qualifies as not a great investment opportunity.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 9:17 AM

Monday, April 12, 2004

From NRO

Here's Luskin on jobs and Bartlett on Kerry.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 10:45 AM

"Big Education" coming under attack...

The time has arrive when higher education is being looked at critically -- as if it were just as culpable of price gouging as Big Pharmaceuticals or Big Oil. For evidence of the trend check out this and this.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 10:30 AM

Dum, da-dum-dum...

If you believe all those big corporations are owned by little guys who look like that rich-uncle person on the Parker Brothers' Monopoly board, you agree with this: Here's a point to remember as you pay your taxes this week: When [large corporations] find ways to exploit the tax code to reduce or eliminate their tax liabilities, individuals pay more. If you have any understanding of the definition of "corporation," you know even when they do pay taxes corporations don't pay taxes. Those taxes are part of corporations' cost stucture -- and finally, part of their pricing structure. This means no matter what, they don't pay taxes at all. You do.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 8:54 AM

Clearly -- I just don't get it...

I have had so many heated backs-and-forths with friends over "big pharmaceutical" TV advertising I've concluded there must be something simple I am missing. I looked for it in this relatively long Sunday Tribune discussion of the issue -- and found no answers whatsoever. The author seems to find some politico/socio/economic meaning, assumedly shared with readers, in the code words "advertisements for some of the nation's most expensive drugs" themselves. In virtually all my discussions with folks heated up by pharmaceutical advertising I've found what might be called Naderite opposition to advertising itself -- i.e. the view advertising is inherently deceptive and exploitative. To me this seems elitist and antidemocratic. I think people can be trusted to make correct judgments when given product information -- even when presented with the slick, manipulative, entertaining, well-packaged product information typical of television pharmaceuticals ad.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 8:43 AM

More re: The Alamo

Cue the "we are not alone music" from Close Encounters of the Third Kind and click here.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 7:18 AM

Current Favorite Seasonal Greeting Card

Angry businessman to bewildered candy manufacturer: "I told you I wanted chocolate rabbits, not rabbis!"

Link posted by Steve Antler : 7:14 AM

Saturday, April 10, 2004

These guys obtain legal asbestos settlements asbestos they can...

You can read about hundreds of thousands of fraudulent claims and unjustified payouts in the billions, perhaps tens of billions of dollars, here. This is all relevant in the light of this upcoming legal story as well as this one.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 6:56 AM

Soak the rich...

From WSJ Online: Mr. Kerry also falls short of the mark when he resurrects the Democratic line that the rich aren't paying their fair share. The numbers tell a different story. A study released this week by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office shows that the trend has been moving in the opposite direction. In 2001, the top fifth of earners paid 26.8% of income in taxes compared with 24.5% in 1984; the other four quintiles all saw their rates drop significantly. The U.S. tax system has become more progressive. We have visited this matter here, as well as here, and also here. And more is on the way.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 6:41 AM

Friday, April 09, 2004

Just when he was ready to quit, Emma Goldman talked to John Reed...

Andrew Sullivan on Iraq: Did we expect the place to become Toledo overnight? The closer we get to transferring power, the more the extremist factions need to prevent a peaceful transition and establish their own power bases for the next phase. The closer we get to a self-governing Arab state, the more terrified Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas and the rest will be that their alternatives -- theocratic fascism and medieval economics -- will look pathetic in comparison. There are millions of people in Iraq who need us now more than ever. Their future and our future are entwined. Which is why we have to keep our nerve, put down these insurrections with focussed ferocity, and move relentlessly toward self-rule. It may be dark this Friday, but Christians are told that a new day will dawn. Not in three days. But in time. If we keep our nerve.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 1:11 PM

Gas Attack (for real)

A poison gas attack is reported as having taken place in Sofia, Bulgaria.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 1:02 PM

Latest potboiler from Prof. K.

Here's a simplistic lecture on employment statistics, and a few random unconnected notes speculating on Kerry's economic policy. Why isn't this leading expert on international trade talking about the outsourcing issue? UPDATE: Oh yes and there's this: Of course, we can hope that the March numbers are just the beginning of a torrent of good news. But the straws in the wind aren't wildly encouraging. Weekly first claims for unemployment insurance are down -- but they're still above the 2000 average, and job growth in 2000 barely kept up with population... (Emphasis added) This 2000 population number is really dangerous to cite. Check this out: The sharp jog at the year 2000 wasn't population growth, but a different way of counting population. It seems clear these changes in counting methods influenced labor force and employment statistics, but I'm still not persuaded the impact was exactly proportionately the same for each series. Someone so quick to accuse others of deceptive data use should be very careful when using data such as these.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 6:50 AM

Thursday, April 08, 2004

Send me a better critic...

NYT's Elvis Mitchell portentously explains why The Alamo is unworthy. First, it attempts to "strip away the ennobling layers of lacquer applied to the lives of Davy Crockett, Jim Bowie and the others fighting to wrest Texas from Mexico and establish a republic -- a sheen polished by previous projects, including the poisonously intoxicating coats lavished by Disney's own 'Davy Crockett' shows." Poisonously intoxicating? Half hour black and white shows starring Fess Parker and Buddy Ebson? Mike Fink, singing about how he was King of the River, "poisonously intoxicating?" It was simple, even embarrassing stuff, even for kids back then. I wonder whether Mitchell knows about what he's talking? And then there's this: The characters here are deprived of even the romance of pursuing what's right, as John Wayne did in the hilariously simple-minded 1960 "Alamo," which he directed and in which he seems to be looking for Khrushchev. Oh yeah, one tends to forget how hilariously simple minded it was to be anti-Communist. Yeah. UPDATE: Okay, this is more like it. I don't read interviews with stars unless they're Billy Bob: One night during filming, when the bullets were flying, Dennis leaned over to me and said, "You're a hillbilly star playing the ultimate hillbilly star," Thornton recalls, laughing. "Never had I heard a quote that was so right on the money." Yep, I feel right about this film. And always, you've got to be sure you're right and then go ahead. UPDATE II: Actually, so far things aren't looking so good: ReelViews (James Berardinelli) review [2/4] Grading The Movies evaluation [A] L.A. Weekly capsule The Flick Filosopher (MaryAnn Johanson) review Killer Movie Reviews (Andrea Chase) review [1/5] Sacramento News & Review (Jim Lane) review Slant Magazine review [0.5/4] Steve Rhodes review [1/4] Harvey S. Karten review [C] Blunt Review with Emily Blunt review [2/4] The Providence Journal (Michael Janusonis) review registration required [4/5] Orlando Weekly review Hollywood.com review [1.5/4] One Guy's Opinion (Frank Swietek) review [D] E! Online capsule Peter Sobczynski review [2/4] Christian Science Monitor (David Sterritt) review [1/4] Film Blather (Eugene Novikov) review The Hollywood Reporter review

Link posted by Steve Antler : 9:04 PM

Methodological Critique

I've been taken to task for comparing 2001 with averages of previous years, and I must say the blogger who brought this up may have a point. When you plot the federal tax shares you see a definite downturn in 2001 compared with 2000 for the highest quintile, and a slight uptick in the share of the next highest. Striking averages for earlier observations and comparing these with the single 2001 observation hid this fact. Three questions should be asked. First -- are these wiggles evidence of the tax cut, the recession, the stock market crash, or some combination of the three? Second -- how will the plot change next year? Third -- will the average American, looking at the distance between the top line and the ones below it really think it was "unfair" to cut taxes at the top? If you think this curve should go higher, where do you think it is "fair" for it to stop? UPDATE: The JEC has worked on this question. I'm going to transfer the data and work on a presentation to post later. UPDATE II: Here's some of the JEC data, not particularly comparable to the way we've been looking at the 2001 data, but at least it shows what conclusions have been reached by those who've already addressed this question systematically. These are dynamically scored effective tax rates, by income class, under (what I believe to be) current law, calculated from 2001 to 2006. Some might see a slight increase in regressivity at the very bottom and top. Others would argue these numbers show, for all practical purposes, no significant change over the next five years. These numbers show no more than change in effective rates over time by income category. They don't show how each category would have fared under the old tax law, nor do they show how the two regimes compare and contrast. Perhaps we'll look at more of this soon. UPDATE III: Ooops! It's the Joint Committee on Taxation, not the Joint Economic Committee. So make that JCT, not JEC in the post above! Sorry.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 3:07 PM

Quotable Quotes II

John Kerry: I believe it is the role of the president of the United States to maximize the ability to be successful and to minimize the cost to the American people, both financially and in lives. That's common sense. Actually, common sense dictates maximizing the success potential of anything involves high costs, far above their potential minimum level, wheras cost minimization, always an attractive possibility, necessarily involves compromise of other goals -- accepting less than maximum "success potential," in other words. And much as we might wish it otherwise, there's always a tradeoff between dollars spent and lives saved. Denial of basic tradeoffs like these is about as far from common sense as anyone can get.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 1:57 PM

New (crude) job projection...

This is really basic, but what the heck, it's one way to get the job done. A reader was kind enough to send me this chart: and I decided to do a little crude projecting right on the chart itself -- you know, like you'd do at the blackboard or at your desk with a ruler. Here's the result -- not all that professional, but what the heck: If we project this quarter's employment growth forward to the next three quarters, we recover all jobs lost to the recession at some point about a month into the third quarter. After that point we have net job gain. By the time of the presidential election the net job gain projects out to roughly 1.1-1.2 million. And by the way all this is according to the payroll -- not the household -- survey.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 1:19 PM

Quotable Quotes

Andrew Sullivan : "I'm waiting for the first moron to start calling this violence an Iraqi intifada." UPDATE: Actually I think this counts as a near-hit: In an interview broadcast Wednesday morning, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry defended terrorist Shiite imam Muqtada al-Sadr as a "legitimate voice" in Iraq, despite that fact that he's led an uprising that has killed nearly 20 American GIs in the last two days.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 12:03 PM

A picture is worth a thousand words...

Thanks to Bruce Bartlett.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 10:54 AM

How about the "very" rich?

More from the CBO's new study Effective Federal Tax Rates: 1979-2001, which we started discussing two days ago. Here's the breakdown for nosebleed levels of income, along with average income in each category: Once again, these numbers measure percentage share of total federal tax liabilities inclusive of individual income, payroll (social insurance), corporate income, and excise taxes. If this is a tax cut for the very rich the numbers don't reflect it. The top 10%, who once paid 40% of all federal taxes, have moved right up to the 50% mark. These number can change, of course, since 2001 is the earliest possible point the Bush tax cuts could have been reflected in data. Until new data come in, however, the numbers say, simply, the tax structure continued to trend toward higher progressivity.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 9:59 AM

As the tradition continues...

Not widely known, a specific kind of "privatization" was among the earliest of US economic policies. I refer, of course, to federal sales of land, directly or indirectly (through states) to the private sector. During the nineteenth century a landmass roughly the size of Europe was sold, along with good title, to the private sector. The result was a kind of dynamic capitalism the world had never seen. And so it continues even up to the present day.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 6:58 AM

New Kerry Slogans?

John Kerry moves to the center and maintains proper distance from soft money by hiring Zach Exley. ...Exley first rose to prominence in Democratic circles when George W. Bush publicly berated him during the 2000 campaign via the national press over his GWBush.com website, which mostly made unsubstantiated claims about the Republican presidential candidate's alleged cocaine use...The site remains active to this day, hawking bumper stickers and T-shirts with tender patriotic devotions emblazoned on them, such as: "Imperialism. A Way of Life Worth Bombing For"; "Regime Change Starts At Home"; "Bush is a Punk Ass Chump"; and, oddly enough, for a site selling wares, "Capitalism: It;s Great in Theory, It Just Didn't Work in Practice."

Link posted by Steve Antler : 6:29 AM

A puzzle...

The incomparable Robert Musil asks: why hasn't Paul Krugman (whose specific area of expertise is international trade) commented on outsourcing?

Link posted by Steve Antler : 6:26 AM

No closure?

Robert Musil reports uniformly bad reviews for The Alamo. Well, these are kinda early, and the reviewers aren't all that prominent. We'll wait and see...

Link posted by Steve Antler : 6:23 AM

A question...

One little detail emerges that supports this history. The boat people (one million strong, even a great little community that wound up in St. John's, Newfoundland) fled Vietnam after the war ended. If John Kerry (and me, and Walter Cronkite, and everyone else who opposed the war) were correct that the US was on the wrong side of a popular struggle for national liberation, why did all those boat people flee after "liberation" was achieved? Via OpinionJournal. UPDATE: By the way, file away these tidbits from James Likeks: Kennedy voted for the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. (Yes, he’s been around that long.) And against the 1991 Gulf War. (He wanted an economic blockade.) HR 4655, which called for regime change in Iraq, was passed by the Senate in October 1998. By unanimous consent.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 5:53 AM

The Challenge...

A good friend asked me to prove I wasn't blinded by ideology by listing ten things I didn't like about Dubya. Here's a good starting point: Political parties, those laughably decrepit institutions, came back to life during the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. Even George H.W. Bush, a throwback to the earlier bipartisan era, felt compelled to turn vicious against his Democratic opponent in the 1988 election, attacking Michael Dukakis for his membership in the American Civil Liberties Union and his obedience to a Massachusetts state court decision prohibiting classroom recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. (And let's not forget Willie Horton.) In Congress, mud-slinging partisan fights were waged over the confirmation of John Tower for defense secretary, over Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court, and, eventually, over the sexual adventures of President Clinton. Today, the administration of George W. Bush is governed (in the words of one former employee) by "Mayberry Machiavellis" who scarcely even recognize that governmental decisions require anything other than the crude calculation of partisan advantage. The Bush fils style so appalled Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, a Ford acolyte, that he turned over 19,000 documents to journalist Ron Suskind. Okay -- I'm no fan of O'Neill, and the "Mayberry Machavellis" comment can easily be dismissed as garden-variety red state sneering at blue state folks. Put all that aside. Wouldn't it be great if Dubya continued (or was able to continue) the tradition of watching movies with Teddy Kennedy and governing from the center? (But I guess the argument really boils down to -- "where's the center?")

Link posted by Steve Antler : 5:41 AM

Wednesday, April 07, 2004

Eyyyewwww!

Steve Verdon eats weird food, but unlike EconoPundit he has never tasted --- seal flipper pie!

Link posted by Steve Antler : 1:03 PM

Remember the Alamo?

I'll just say this: I'm really a big fan and I had a coonskin cap when I was five and seeing Billy Bob Thornton portraying Davy Crockett promises to be, well, maybe some sort of life-experience closure sort of thing.

Link posted by Steve Antler : 12:17 PM

Imagine the world as a set of feeding opportunities...

Why do they do this? First, because they can. But second -- most important -- because the highly concentrated sustenance offered by this new ecological niche is rich and plentiful. This new war on Wal-Mart is more than just a skirmish over store sites or union-organizing efforts. It is an attack on a company that embodies the dynamic, productivity-driven, customer-oriented U.S. economy that emerged in