Not Economics

On Hiatus

2004-12-26T16:51:00.000-08:00

Constantly coming up with something to say is harder than it looks. This blog is on hiatus for now.

Ciao.

Oh yeah?

2004-12-07T12:55:00.000-08:00

David Brooks writes

People who have enough kids for a basketball team are too busy to fight a culture war.

Oh yeah? I have a basketball team and I hope these posts (here and here) constitute my contribution to the fight.

Winning Insurgencies

2004-12-06T20:42:00.000-08:00

What makes an insurgency succeed?

National Review (print version) has published an article by Alistair Horne on the struggle in Algeria against the French, eventually won by the insurgents. At first glance it is very depressing. Consider especially

The first year of the Algerian war ended in stalemate, with France's forces, trained for war in Europe, unable to eradicate the FLN, and the FLN too weak to inflict serious damage on the French. Then, in a deadly move, the FLN switched to attacking the government's Algerian auxiliaries: local caids or magistrates, administrators, and above all, the police and their families. This strategy paid off handsomely. The Muslim police suffered many casualties; they were demoralized by fear, and remained paralyzed in their stations. They had to be protected by French army units that should have been deployed on offensive missions.

Next the FLN targeted villages friendly to the French, and outlying pied noir (French civilian) settlements. Using the bestial technique favored by Islamists to express contempt for the infidel, they slit the throats of women and children. Result: On the one hand, the French steadily lost support to the FLN for failing to protect the loyal, or uncommitted population; on the other, a terrorized civilian workforce left in droves.

This, of course, sounds disturbingly familiar.

But is this the right analogy? Note that the Algerian insurgents were not attacking Algerian civilians, but French civilians, who were against them anyway. In Iraq, the insurgents are slaughtering Iraqi civilians (as well as policemen and Iraqi national guard) for a simple reason not analogous to Algeria: the insurgents have popular support only among a geographically distinct minority, the 20% Sunnis. Further, it was pretty clear that French wanted to stay while the Americans want to leave. The enemy of the insurgents is not the Americans, but the 80% of the population that is not Sunni.

So a question: Has mass slaughter of innocent indigenous civilians ever been the path to a successful insurgency? Others have tried it (the Shining Path in Peru comes to mind), but I can't think of any where it worked.

Sigh

2004-12-02T05:42:00.000-08:00

I've always had a soft spot in my heart for Italians, mostly because economics, or at least the subfield I'm in, is so full of them, and they are so fun to be around. So I've taken to making an exception for Italians (at least internally) when railing against Europeans. So, for instance, I wrote the following to an Italian friend (who lives in America) regarding my post on feminization.

I want to defend my comment that Italy is far less feminized than say, England. Recall the Italian who before he got killed by his Iraqi captors ripped off his hood and yelled "I will show you how an Italian dies!" and fought them and the whimpering English guy whose last words were "Tony Blair could have done more for me."
God knows how I would react in such a situation. Maybe I would cry like a little girl. But I do know that my ideal, how I want to act, is like the Italian. What is remarkable about England is that their response was basically "He's right. Tony Blair could have done more for him." On the other hand, I think the Italians took pride in their guy. My point is that regardless of how I would react in such a situation, it says something good about Italy that they admired their guy and didn't simply say "what difference does it make, he was dead in the end anyway." They felt he died like a man.

My friend replied

Chris: you are wrong here. Italians thought that the guy was a crazy fascist (only fascists are patriots). Not only, they thought he looked for troubles, because he went there as a private guard. They thought instead the gov't should have saved the leftist journalist, because "he was there for a good cause (world peace) "

Sorry to break your image of Italy, but ask anybody, this is what people there felt. Italy is as bad as anywhere else. Perhaps more. Nobody beats us on "the gov't should have done more for me"

Sigh.

“I’ve Got An Idea!”

2004-11-30T20:00:00.000-08:00

1) Invariably, in a Judy Garland and Mickey Rooney movie, during some predicament which requires money to be raised, one of them will explain “Hey Guys! I have an idea! Let’s put on a show!”

2) There is news now that doctors in the Netherlands are openly and actively euthanasing newborn infants whom they believe are better off dead, due to either suffering or likely imminent death even without intervention.

What do these have to do with each other?

Hitler didn’t come along one day saying “Hey Guys! I have an idea! Let’s kill all the Jews!” to which everyone responded, “Wow. Great idea Adolf!” Things don’t and didn’t work that way. It started with forced sterilization and euthanasia of other undesirables. First, it was the mentally ill and retarded. By 1939 (but before the war started) there was an active program of killing mental patients and of selecting retarded or deformed children under three to be taken from their parents and killed.

I’m not sure exactly what caused the German people to allow the Holocaust to happen. But I’m convinced that this type of killing takes getting used to. Once you convince yourself that society would be better off getting rid of the mentally ill, its simply an easier step mentally to consider getting rid of other “undesirables.”

I’m against abortion on moral terms. But I also think there is a practical argument to be made. Bright white lines can be very useful. One nice bright line is that we don’t deliberately kill innocent human beings. Legalized abortion erases that bright white line. These humans are really small, young, and actually won’t mind being killed like you or I would, right? But now there’s no natural place to draw that line, and convenience is always pushing us to kill just a few more.

Feminization

2004-11-29T18:52:00.000-08:00

Western culture currently frowns on defining any virtues as masculine or feminine. A European economist friend of mine is in full ridicule mode (in a private email to me) regarding my post on Europe, Masculinity, and Guns. But there is such a thing as a masculine virtue and the elite culture is trying to erase it from our collective minds. Here’s my proof.

Suppose you know a couple, Bill and Mary, and their infant son.

There is a fire and someone needs to go save the infant son in a fire. Bill’s wife yells "Bill, go get him!.” Bill responds, "Mary, it seems to me that it's only fair that we flip a coin and the loser goes and gets him." In both cases, one spouse wants the other to go and save the baby. Would any real person, in their gut, respond symmetrically to this? Bill is a coward, period, and anyone who claims he thinks equally ill of both of them is simply kidding himself.

Blasphemy

2004-11-27T13:33:00.000-08:00

Western society took a few centuries and spilled a lot of blood learning how to deal with blasphemy. Faithfulness to God requires genuine blasphemy be punished. The genius of modern Christianity was to reconcile such punishment with a multi-religious society where critical discussion of anything religious can be considered blasphemous by some believers. The reconciliation comes from Jesus’ admonition, “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, render unto God that which is God’s,” or, perhaps, “vengeance is the Lord’s.” Blasphemy is to be punished by God, not man.

Europe’s problem with Islam (and Islam’s problem with the rest of the world) is that to many Muslims 1) their definition of blasphemy includes practically any criticism of Islam (Islam was given to us directly by God, thus any criticism of Islam is an affront to God) and 2) blasphemy is rightly punished by men, not just God.

I do not know what percentage of Muslims hold these views. But we literally cannot live with people who hold such views. Europe attempts to coexist with them at its own peril.

Evil Conservatives

2004-11-22T23:54:00.000-08:00

I've posted on this over at John Adams blog.

Conservatives have a distinct separation between the political positions you take and morality. Many (most?) liberals simply don't. You are good if you believe the right things and you are bad otherwise.

Think of it this way. We all know nasty people, those who treat those around them, especially those "below them" (their underlings or in a service role such as waiters) like crap. And we think these people are wrong to be this way. And if we find out they are conservatives, it makes us embarassed for conservatism. It does not, at least in my case, cause me to suddenly think they're not jerks. They're just jerks who happen to agree with me on a few political issues, but not on the more fundamental issue of how to treat your fellow human beings.

Now contrast this with liberals. Bill Clinton was notorious for treating those under him like crap. Same with Ted Kennedy. Look at how they treat women! But liberals don't simply consider them to jerks who help them get what they want. They consider them good people. Upstanding moral citizens precisely because of their political positions.

Publius writes

Can the Democratic party really hope to survive if they continue to believe that "moral values" equate to leftist ideological positions?

They got 48% of the vote? Why not?

Ignoring Victory

2004-11-21T19:29:00.000-08:00

In another good post, Publius at The John Adams Blog, considers Saturday's Minneapolis StarTribune editorial, Whither Iraq?/Its future doesn't look good. Publius writes

Although the article is wholly defeatist, the comparison to the outlook of Vietnam in the 1970s is the most egregious.

This is the only part I disagree with. That is, what the most egregious part is. The most egregious part of the StarTribune editorial is that they are defeatist in the midst of one of the most impressive urban warfare victories in recent history. It seems any victory of US troops is met with a big yawn. But consider what was being said before we invaded Iraq (this from the Daily Kos, January 17, 2003)

But, as this Christian Science Monitor article makes clear, the US could face far worse in Baghdad:

Inside Iraqi cities, military operations would be vastly more complicated. Buildings constrict troop and tank maneuvers, interfere with radio communications, and limit close air support from helicopters and gunships. Dense populations make airstrikes - even precision ones - costly in civilian lives. From sewers to rooftops, cities are multilayered, like three-dimensional chessboards, creating endless opportunities for ambushes and snipers. Worse, Iraqi forces defending the cities could try to halt invading troops by shelling them with chemical weapons.

The prospect of urban warfare is one that the US military is increasingly more likely to face. Thus, as this article notes, the US Army is focusing more and more of its training on urban tactics. Yet even the best trained units take massive casualties in an urban environment. In the excercise witnessed by the reporter, US forces took a small town, but at the cost of dozens of its own soldiers. It's a sobering and eye-opening piece. But not surprising, throughout history, urban warfare has been the great equalizer -- it allowed Somali warlords to fight the US to a standstill. It allowed the Chechens to make a mockery of the better equipped Russians. And so on.

And this wasn't simply the usual pessimism. The Russians really did get whipped in Grozny. They lost entire columns of men and tanks. Eight hundred men in a day. To see how this happened, read the Belmont Club. Nevertheless, the US Marines and Army kicked major ass. We lost men, and very good men at that. But this was a major victory. We did not lose dozens of men to take over a small town. Fallujah is a city of hundreds of thousands with thousands of dug in terrorists with very good weapons. And an RPG ain't a pea-shooter. So, of course, now is the time for pessimism.

Europe's Anger

2004-11-20T08:09:00.000-08:00

Over at the John Adams Blog, the new blog of the The Antient and Honourable John Adams Society, Minnesota's Conservative Debating Society, Publius writes

If you have not yet read Kagan's recently published talk on American legitimacy, it is well worth the read. My basic impression of his argument is that European voters feel disenfranchised with U.S. Presidential elections - they feel they should have the right to vote for our future (or demise) also. Consequently, Europeans see no "democratic" legitimacy in anything we do. We are the oppressors of their freedoms!

There is something to this, but I think it is broader than just not getting to vote. Europe is angry because we have, in their opinion, taken from them something that by all rights should be theirs - relevance.

Think about this. Who is the average European more angry at, President Bush or Saddam Hussein? By ``angry at,'' I mean viscerally. In the gut. Given this way of defining anger, there is no question the answer is Bush. Europeans might think Saddam is an evil person, but there is simply not the emotional reaction Bush incites.

So what explains this?

It can't be that Europeans simply expect more from an American president than an Iraqi dictator (although they do and should). The emotional reaction to someone treating third parties (in this case, Iraqis) worse than you expected is disappointment, not anger. Anger comes from someone doing something to you.

So what has Bush done to Europe? He hasn't invaded, killed Europeans, threatened to hurt Europeans, or anything like that. He has ignored them. He thanked them for their opinion and did what he thought was right. (Which I have argued is all he morally could have done.) And now we have the angry Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction , "I will not be ignored."

Uraguay doesn't feel humiliated because we invaded Iraq over their objections. Uraguay has accepted that the US acts with or without Uraguay's approval. But, like Close's character, Europe feels entitled to be relevant, not discarded like a former mistress. Hide the bunny.

Zones

2004-11-18T20:04:00.000-08:00

Previous posts of mine have touched on what does the religious right want? The recent Monday Night Football controversy highlights this. So what if a starlet pretends to throw herself naked at a football star? What are you, some kind of prude? (Or racist prude since she is white and he is black?) Are you to tell the rest of us we can't have skits like this because they upset your oh so fragile sensibilities?

No. I don't expect a world where such antics are forbidden. All I want is fair warning. All I want is a zone where I can raise my children and I can choose when to introduce sensitive topics.

I remember a few years ago when Whoopi Goldberg emceed the Academy Awards, and when introducing Liam Neeson, simulated masturbating the Oscar statue. Wonderful! Fabulous! As a friend of mine put it, great! Now I can't let my kids watch the Oscars anymore either, then!

So that's it. I'm right wing. I'm religious. So I guess I'm part of the religious right. I don't want to tell you how to raise your kids. If you want to introduce them to the real world of sex and adultery at whatever age you want, that's your business and not mine. But I want some sphere of public life where I get to raise my kids as well. If I make the decision that I would rather wait to introduce these topics until they reach an age where earlier generations would deem it appropriate to introduce them, then I want that ability without having to lock my kids up in the house and never letting them turn the TV on. I want to be able to go to the mall without seeing huge posters at Victoria's Secret with models in poses wearing "outfits" which would make a prostitute from an earlier generation blush. I want to be able to watch a football game with my kids without a Janet Jackson S&M show or a scene where a starlet jumps the bones of a football player. What I am literally asking for is the ability to access a subset of society that merely resembles the one in which my parents raised me. Does asking for this make me the American Taliban?

The Taliban wanted to tell everyone in Afghanistan how to live. I simply want to be left alone to raise my kids with some predictable zones of public life where my kids can remain innocent.

Some think that is too much to ask. Who is imposing on whom?

Conversation on War

2004-11-17T22:26:00.000-08:00

I have a good friend with whom I have been having an email conversation regarding the morality of the war in Iraq. He explicitly asks for a Christian justification, so if that type of argument is not your cup of tea, stop reading. Below is simply one part of his email (in the form of a question) and my answer.

A: I feel that this war in Iraq is immoral, perhaps it is even a sin. We have, as a matter of choice, engaged in the murder of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis and torture of who knows how many others because somebody thinks that someday, somehow, this might save the lives of Americans. I know that the threat of terrorism is real, but did not Jesus teach us to turn the other cheek? I am serious about that. We have set about chasing after those who attacked us on September 11. That had nothing to do with Iraq. How can we say that this war is just? What does the Pope say on this? As an American, how can I avoid the sense that I am participating in murder?

Chris: Let’s see what we agree on. First, we are all God’s children. If I am hungry and want to cut off the head of a chicken and eat it, I’ll just do it. There is no great moral issue. If I feel threatened by some avian flu, and believe I’ll be safer by killing 10,000 chickens with a bomb, I’ll just do it. Again no great moral issue. But people are not chickens. I don’t get to use and dispose of them based on my own needs. They themselves have a dignity given by God. In fact, I’m commanded to love them. Any justification of what we are doing is going to have to deal with this commandment. St. Thomas Aquinas understood this. He put his just war theory in The Summa Theologica in his section on charity (or love) not in his section on justice.

The pope has a great line: “The opposite of love is not hate. It is use.” So are we using Iraqis like the chickens I’m afraid of getting the flu from? I don’t think so. I think the situation is analogous to the following:

Suppose one group is enslaving, murdering, raping, or otherwise victimizing another group, and we believe the first group also poses a threat to a third group, our fellow citizens and children. What are our moral obligations given we are commanded to love all three groups?

Suppose we can cleanly wipe out the first group? Is this justified? Not if there is any other way of stopping the enslavement, murders, rapes, or whatever. But what if there is no other way? Then our commandment to love the second and third group to me allows, and may require us to kill the first group.

Suppose we can wipe out the first group, but only with some risk to members of the second group? Some fraction will die in the process. Here my morality is that I can’t use the second group as a means to my ends. I have to take this risk into account from their perspective. If I were them, would I want the risk taken? If I can honestly answer yes, then this seems to me consistent with loving the second group. This example is the one that I think of as being analogous to the Iraq war and civilian casualties.

Suppose we can wipe out the first group, but only with great risk to the second group. Most of them will die in the process. So many that I can’t honestly answer that it would be worth the risk. This is the case when the first group is, say, Saddam and his inner circle, the second group is his conscript soldiers, and the third group is everyone else. Even here, it seems to me that love for the third group (which now includes American and Iraqi civilians) may allow this.

So does this mean anything goes? Not to me. I agree with you that torture and humiliation is just wrong. It denies the humanity of the victim. (I’m not sure exactly what is torture. Is making someone believe you will kill him if he doesn’t talk torture?) There is also always a tendency for it to happen. And it needs to be punished when it does.

I think we probably agree on much of this and disagree about the facts. This has a lot to do with your questions “How can we say that this war is just? What does the Pope say on this?” The Pope believes he and the Church have the authority to definitively state what the conditions are for when a war is or is not just. But he does not believe he or the Church have the authority to state when those conditions have or have not been met. That is what they call a “prudential judgement.” “If condition A is met then action B is justified” is a universal statement. “Condition A is met” is a statement about a particular time and circumstance. The pope and the Church claim no special ability to make statements which depend on particular circumstances, but still believe they have the right to offer an opinion. So on the Iraq war, the pope's people (not so much the pope) let it be know that in their opinion, the conditions for a just war had not been met, but the pope himself let it be known that these were opinions for which the church had no special insight.

So the pope and Bush disagreed on what the facts were, but not the principals involved, as I suspect, do we. We can discuss particular facts later.

Greed

2004-11-10T16:51:00.000-08:00

The groups that supported President Bush can be roughly described as:

1) Economic Conservatives: Lower taxes, regulation, reform of entitlements, tort reform.

2) Foreign policy conservatives: Strong military. Willingness to use military force. Skeptical of multinational institutions.

3) Social Conservatives. Anti-abortion, gay marriage, pornography. (See my post below).

It’s pretty fair to say that if a voter does not fall into at least one of these categories, he likely voted for Kerry. And some of us fall into all three categories. But a good number of Bush voters do not fall into all three. In particular, I suspect a good number of economic and foreign policy conservatives are not social conservatives and a good number of social conservatives are not economic or foreign policy conservatives. What’s interesting is that these groups together seem to have coalesced into governing majority.

But is this majority stable? The mainstream media would have us believe this depends on how greedy conservatives get. Their reasoning is that if Bush pushes a conservative agenda (under all three fronts outlined above) the country will balk and elect liberals in the future. I don’t agree. Why should this coalition fall apart if conservatives are collectively greedy (pushing a conservative agenda across all three fronts)? Doing so is pretty much what everyone expected when they voted, and that expectation was enough to deliver a majority. Instead, the coalition will fall apart if conservatives become separately greedy and attempt to enact only those parts of the list above that they individually favor. Put bluntly, if the economic and foreign policy conservatives get greedy and now attempt to shut out the social conservatives, the gains made in this election will be short lived, and whatever gains we’ve made on the economic and foreign policy fronts will be undone in the following years.

Who needs Whom (more)?

2004-11-08T18:17:00.000-08:00

The new anti-American government in Spain is supposedly quite popular. See here.

When anti-Americanism is brought up in the press, it is always presented as a problem for the US and something that the Bush administration should have handled better. Maybe so. But isn't this a far bigger problem for Europe? Simply put, if two peoples are drifting apart, wouldn't you rather be the one with the military? Or the one not on the border of a hostile force?

Reasonable people can disagree regarding the necessity or wisdom of invading Iraq. But reasonable people can't believe that no country ever needs invading. For instance, suppose in ten years, a north African Islamic country shelters terrorists that decide to initiate a long term suicide bombing campaign in Spain in order to recover Andalusia? Will Spain be able to invade to stop the sheltering of the terrorists? If the current trends keep up, Spain will be unable to invade any other country and have no friends who can do it either. Not a great position, if you ask me. (And, of course, you didn't).

Europe, Masculinity and Guns

2004-11-06T19:28:00.000-08:00

I don't own any guns but I'm against gun control. My European friends at work think this is crazy. Why not allow people to own anti-aircraft missiles or nuclear weapons? Further, America has a huge number of handgun deaths (and murders overall) relative to Europe. I usually reply with a legal argument: The 2nd amendment was about guns, not bombs or missiles. But that really isn't an answer. I like the 2nd amendment and I think it cuts to the heart of the diffence in attitudes between American and Europe.

In that conversation, someone mentioned that the problem with guns is that 14-year old gang bangers want guns to prove they are men. It was automatically assumed that getting a gun to prove you are a man is a bad thing. Now, of course, a 14-year old gang banger getting a gun is a bad thing. But the association of guns with masculinity isn't. (Feel free to insert obligatory joke about a gun compensating for a small penis. Finished? Ok, now we can move on.)

The kinds of guns that Americans buy are for personal and domocile protection. If I felt my family's safety depended upon it, I would buy a shotgun for the house and a handgun for my person and I hope I would not hesitate to use it if the situation called for it. This is a masculine inclination. It asserts that the one responsible for my and my family's safety is primarily me. Not the government. They are there to help me, but the responsibility is mine. In that sense, when an American man buys a gun, he is asserting he is a man, as in an adult. His is not anyone's dependent. If you want to understand America's "obsession" with guns, this may be where to start.

Which wire to cut?

2004-11-05T18:10:00.000-08:00

I have a good friend who is troubled by the morality of the war in Iraq and we are having a good email discussion of it. One question he asks is

how should I interpret the fact that we went to war when many other governments (and from my reading of the documents below) the Vatican, thought at the time that we should not do so? If the decision to go to war by a government is supposed to be based on a strict moral standard, how can you choose to go to war in the face of substantial international opposition from other governments, particularly many of those that share your moral view?

Here was my response in the form of a thought experiment:

I just don't see why the objections of other governments is directly, as opposed to indirectly, relevant.

Here's my analogy. Suppose you are stuck in room with your family, and a bunch of other men and their families. There is a bomb and it may possibly be about to go off. Because you carry and know how to use tools, you can open the bomb and cut the wire. The others have no ability to do anything with the bomb and, in fact, are wheelchair bound. They can't cut the wire and can't stop you from cutting the wire. You know something about bombs as do some of them. There is a controversy. Some claim that cutting the wire will cause the bomb to go off. Others claim not cutting the wire will cause the bomb to go off. The ones that say don't cut are by far the majority. You decide to talk it out with everyone. You listen to the arguments for cutting the wire and the arguments for not cutting the wire. You become convinced that cutting the wire is the correct course even though the majority of those in the room are screaming at you not to cut it since they are convinced by doing so you will kill everyone. So here is the question: Do you cut it or not? I say you have to go with your honestly derived at convictions. How can you not cut the wire when you are convinced (after taking into account all arguments) that by not doing so you will be killing everyone?

1959

2004-11-04T19:03:00.000-08:00

What do cultural conservatives want?

When one colleague opined that the reason Kerry lost was the gay marriage banning amendments, another commented “Great. Now we’re being governed by the American Taliban.” The Taliban and the mullahs in Iran are genuine theocracies. Is this what the American religious conservatives want, a theocracy?

Not unless you are willing to state that America in 1959 was a theocracy. Because 1959 is all even the most conservative of the conservatives want. On most social issues (not race issues) the most conservative of the cultural and religious conservatives simply want to set the clock back to the status quo before the 1960’s.

1) Prayer in schools. They would allow schools to open the day or special events with some sort of non-denominational prayer. “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country.” (I believe this is the exact prayer that was in front of the Supreme Court.) They would be happy with local control. Places that don’t want prayers don’t have to have them.

2) Religiosity in the public square. It is ok to post the ten commandments, and manger scenes at Christmas, and sing Christmas carols at school plays. Mentions of God by public officials are tolerated. Again, they would be happy with local control.

3) Homosexuality: Homosexual acts are illegal but these laws never enforced except if a minor is involved. The illegality is more like a resolution of the society of what they disapprove of. Further, it is legal to discriminate privately against homosexuals. Again, they would be happy with local control.

4) Contraception. Legal but not easy to get for an unmarried couple. Again, happy with local control.

5) Sex in the Public Square. Hard core pornography mostly illegal. Local control. If New York city wants to allow it fine, but Macon, Georgia gets to keep it out.

6) Abortion. Illegal. Period. All cases,everywhere. Would be willing to accept social control as a compromise, but to them, this is murder and should be illegal, even in Massachusetts.

So such laws make a society a theocracy? Again, not unless you are willing to argue that the Eisenhower administration was a theocracy. For social or cultural liberals, these are just laws you don’t like. And what they all have in common is that they were overturned not by popular will, but by the cultural elites through the court system. All of these changes were simply rammed down the nation’s collective throat. And except for abortion, all the social conservatives want is for their communities to be left alone to make their own laws. Don’t act surprised at the backlash. You reap what you sow.

Channeling Krugman

2004-11-03T19:21:00.000-08:00

I have one more regret about my late night cranky post. I said Bush was a better man than Kerry. Now I actually believe that Bush is better man than Kerry, but I nevertheless shouldn't have said it.

Why? Because while we all make judgements about other people, if we both have the same information (we both see only the public Kerry and Bush) then there is no reason for the reader to be at all swayed by my unsupported opinion.

This is the main flaw of Paul Krugman. Krugman used to be a serious economist. His popular writings were excellent explanations of convential wisdom among economists translated into laymen's terms (except when he talked about macroeconomics, a field where he knows little.) But Bush, like Clinton, has the special gift of making his enemies go crazy and Krugman is a prime example. He has become "The Shadow." (Who knows what evil lurks in the heart of men? The Shadow knows!)

Krugman seems to honestly believe his comparative advantage in this world is to look into the hearts of other men and tell you what he sees. Every column is the same. He sees THE REAL BUSH! HE'S EVIL! CAN'T YOU SEE IT! CAN'T YOU SEE IT! THEY'RE ALL EVIL! WAKE UP PEOPLE! WAKE UP!

The only problem with this is that it requires you to believe that the speaker has this special "shadow" gift in order to take his word for it. I don't grant this to Krugman, so I see no reason anyone should grant it to me.

The Conditional Concession

2004-11-03T18:00:00.000-08:00

Based on some comments on my cranky late night post below, I've changed my mind that Kerry should have conceded last night. If there is still a chance that you can legally win, simply by counting the votes, not by going to court, I don't see why you should be pressured to concede. On the other hand, once the polls have closed, there is no reason for happy talk. Further, people need to get sleep and want to hear from the candidates before they go to bed.

Thus simple good manners implies Kerry should have come out and done what Nixon did in 1960. That is, a conditional concession to his supporters, as in,

"Dear supporters: If present trends continue, President Bush will be re-elected President of the United States. There are still votes to be counted in Ohio, and, of course, we eagerly await the counting of these votes, and it is possible these will give us the state of Ohio and the victory. But this is unlikely, and at this point I wish to thank all of you for your support ..."

Instead, they sent Edwards out under the introduction "Ladies and Gentlemen, the next vice-president of the United States." That was bad form.

What's important

2004-11-03T01:45:00.000-08:00

I still agree with what I wrote, but I regret focusing on "What would Bush have done?"

This election is over, and just like 2002, Bush won decisively. And this is a big election.

1) The presidency: 51-48. First outright majority since 1988.

2) The Senate: Probably a pickup of 5 seats. Huge.

3) The House: Probable pickup of 5 seats. The House has now been in Republican hands since 1994.

Republicans have a majority of the governorships and (I believe) the majority of state legislators.

I am still somewhat appalled that the Democratic party embraced the loony left this year and still got 48% of the vote. I hope that they learn that this is a losing strategy.

What would Bush have done?

2004-11-03T00:00:00.000-08:00

Ok. Here's the scenario. It's three in the morning Eastern time. Bush is losing the popular vote by 3 million votes and losing Ohio with 98% of the vote in by 127,000 votes and that gives Kerry the election. Does Bush concede?

Yes. Bush cares about his country. He is the better man. And that explains the three million votes.

CEO Syndrome and Osama

2004-10-30T13:35:00.000-07:00

My brother was the owner and CEO of a relatively successful business. When trying to get out of jury duty he got the judge so mad at him he was almost held in contempt. (And he is usually the nicest guy in the world.) When telling the story to my mom and expecting her to be sympathetic to him, my mom took the judge's side and said he lucky not to have been thrown in jail. Then she said something pretty insightful: "You know what your problem is. You have `CEO Syndrome'. In your day to day existence, everyone you talk to you can fire, and they know it. No one ever tells you (except your mother and the judge) when you're being a jerk."

So what does this have to do with Osama? How's this: Osama essentially endorsed Kerry with what to him was a reasoned argument because he actually expected us to be convinced by it. It sounded reasonable and convincing to him. And Osama knows he is reasonable and convincing. Everyone around him thinks so! Osama is incredibly isolated and most likely surrounded by sycophants he could have killed with a click of his finger. Combining that with his being a megolomaniac to start with convinces me he was perfectly serious.

This is essentially an explanation for The Kerry Spot's post on "The Arrogance of Evil."

Who does Bin Laden want to win?

2004-10-29T21:22:00.000-07:00

So OBL has resurfaced and sounded like he just watched Fahrenheit 9/11. (Before Moore's film, did anyone know that the book Bush was reading was called "My Pet Goat"? I didn't). Most right wingers think this helps Bush, arguing that it's obvious that OBL is trying to influence the election by saying "don't fight us and we won't fight you" which translates to "get rid of Bush and you'll be safe" and that the American electorate is sure to reject this. Democrats have been countering: No. Bin Laden is smart. He knows this will be the American reaction. Thus he must really want Bush and is trying to push the election to him.

Nonsense.

1) It isn't obvious saying "be nice to us and we won't hurt you anymore" won't work. Why assume America has a "no way a***ole, we're going to kill you" attitude? Spain doesn't.

2) This reverse psychology has no end. If everybody knows (including OBL) that everybody knows (and so on) that whoever OBL endorses is likely to lose, then there is no reason for OBL to talk at all. Formally, the communication game between OBL and the electorate has no pure strategy equilibrium. Bin Laden has two options: tell the truth regarding who he wants to win, or lie about who he wants to win. The electorate has two options: accept Bin Laden's recommendation (elect who he claims to endorse) or reject his recommendation (elect the candidate other than the one Bin Laden claims to endorse). The payoff for Bin Laden is that he gets 1 if the candidate he actually wants to win wins and zero otherwise. The payoff to the electorate is 1 if Bin Laden's candidate loses and 0 if Bin Laden's candidate wins. To restate, this game has no pure strategy equilibrium and no equilibrium where Bin Laden's preferences actually get communicated.

Europe vs. US

2004-10-26T20:36:00.000-07:00

My Italian friend Andrea seemed somewhat hurt when I wrote in my post Two Questions, “I would not have much of a problem giving up American sovereignty and joining Europeans in some sort of joint defense agreement if I thought Europeans were close to Americans in terms of what was worth fighting for. But I don't think that, so the last thing I want to do is give them a voice over how we use our military.” He argued, after all aren’t we all part of the same Western civilization?

Yes, we are all part of Western civilization, but are continental Europeans actually willing to risk anything to defend it for their children? We still have a military subculture in this country - families where military service is an honored tradition. In fact, I don’t see how this can be the case in Europe since, for the most part, continental Europe doesn’t have militaries which are capable of actual sustained combat. For instance, the European forces in Afghanistan won’t leave Kabul. While I’m sure these forces have honorable and brave men, they either don’t have the training or equipment to engage the Taliban, or the political culture in their countries won’t allow them to actually take casualties. (I suspect it is a combination of both). Recall, Afghanistan is the “good war.” Everyone agrees with that one, but the political culture in Europe makes it impossible for the European troops to be of any real combat help.

A large subculture in America is much different. We are anti-anti-war. . It is telling that St. Thomas Aquinas put his just war theory in The Summa Theologica in his section on charity. The moral soldier, to Thomas, was a hero. The protector of the weak. A large fraction of Americans agree with this. That’s why they are proud of their children fighting in Iraq. They see them as altruists.

I suspect most Europeans would not only not agree with me that the average U.S. Marine is true altruist, doing what he does to make the world a better place (as opposed to some brainwashed unread nutjob) but would find it hard to believe I’m actually serious. This is big cultural divide.

Doing this right.

2004-10-25T20:41:00.000-07:00

I have been having trouble setting up comments, so a few have been deleted. Sorry.

But some have expressed an unwillingness to assume, as I have in my tradesports.com state price analysis below that pricing errors are perfectly correlated. Which is fine. Like all assumptions, this one is almost certainly false. But one has to make assumptions to get anywhere. In particular, this one allows you to get a probability of a Bush win with no simulations. To do it right requires simulations, as follows.

Let x be a normally distributed random variable (mean zero, variance 1) and
y_state be a normally distributed mean zero, variance one random variables, one for each state. Finally, let w be a number between zero and one. Since the sum of normally distributed random variables is also normal, then shock_state = w*x + (1-w)*y_state is a normally distributed, mean zero, variance one random variable regardless of the value of w. Let F(shock_state) be the probability of drawing a number less then shock_state from mean zero, variance one normal distribution.
Next, if state_price > F(shock_state), give the state to Bush. Otherwise, give it to Kerry. If w = 1, then this is exactly the method outlined below.
That is, common shocks. On the other hand, if w = 0, then this assumes each state draws its own shock. For intermediate w, some correlation between perfect and zero is assumed.

To calculate the probabilities for a given w, one would have to run, say, 100,000 simulations of the x and y_state shocks and simply calculate the fraction of times Bush wins. The result would be a graph with w on the x axis and the probability that Bush wins on the y axis.

I have to travel for a few days, but I will try to program this.