Pile of money

Brad’s mystery is solved, and by the entertainment industry no less.

Reading elsewhere “We are at war.” … “When the Islamist butchers are dead, it will be over.” I am reminded that “we” do not know who we are at war with.

There are plenty of individuals and groups confident that they know, but there is no consensus.

Possibly we are war with rich angry young men like those who lead Al Queda. Possibly we at war with the vast soup of poor angry young men who’s most sophisticed source of learning is the local religious school. Possibly we at war with the problem of societies who’s civic structure is so weak they can offer no better alternative than that. Possibly we are at war with the ease with which a lone actor, or small group of actors can create terror and destruction far beyond thier size. If that’s a war against the way technology give ever increasing leverage to individuals. Maybe we at war with pirates. Maybe we are at war with authoritarian tyrants like Sadam Huessen or Iraq or Joesph Smith of Nigeria. Maybe we are at war with religous cults. Maybe we at war with those who demonize and polarize. Maybe we are war with problem of goverments so tenous, so weak that they tollerate terrorists or ‘harbor’ terrorists.

Possibly we are war with those who would use terror to drive people out of the middle ground and into the simple minded fringes. A place where the retoric is colorful, emotional, and wrong.

Shame on the people

who passed this law.

In the paper today is an article about a currenlty popular approach to dealing with bing drinking on college campuses. It contains this wonderful quote: ”’Part of the enthusiasm about social norming is that so little has worked in the past,” Wood said. ”Practicewise, it’s extremely popular. Sciencewise, it’s a little preliminary.”’

My son and I enjoyed an amusing conversation about a thick book he’s reading about the British Empire, the Middle East, and all that. He says: “They didn’t know what they were doing.” I say: “Good lesson there, one rarely does … though there is some comfort in pretending.” He say: “Oh they were quite confident they knew what they were doing.” I say: “Probably a general rule there. Given that nobody knows diddly, and a large population of possible actors, the sorting hat will see to it that those who are arrogant enough to pretend they know what they are doing will rise to the top and do something.” Since everybody around them will be pointing out that we really don’t know what we are doing they will become more and more arrogant and better and better at dismissing everybody else as useless irritants. Once you get rid of all those generators of negativity you can then get down to maximizing on your own self interest.

I’m glad that modern empire builders don’t suffer from this syndrome.

A lovely example of Bruce Sterling’s hypothisis that the implosion of privacy will make it very very hard for the elites to maintain any sort of reputation.

The ever interesting Josh Mashall writes early today about the various colors of lying that folks are trotting out in an attempt to comprehend or forgive the misleading evidence used to justify that war in Iraq was necessary urgently, now, immediately, with no time to build a concensus.

These folks are bullies. They bullied our allies. They bullied the intelegence community. Thy bullied the military planners. They bullied the congress. Given the oportunity they bullied everyone who asked a question.

To me, the question of “did they lie” vs. “were they victums of a massive self delusion” misses the point entirely. Lies and delusions are the direct result of encouraging bullies.

We need to be clear about this.

Raising the debt ceiling: $1,000,000,000,000.00.

My nation: 300,000,000 people

Added debt:$33,000 per person

My town: 42,000 people

Our share: $1,400,000,000.00

Our tax override: $4,000,000.00

If we passed one override every single day for a year: $1,460,000,000.00

Wonder were all that money from the rising debt is going!

Respectfully represent unto your Honorable Board the undersigned, that
they are inhabitants of the Town of Arlington, in the County of
Middlesex, in said Commonwealth, and residents of that portion thereof
known as the Winter Street District; that one Richard M. Johnson is
occupying or using certain buildings and premises in said Arlington
for the purpose of carrying on and exercizing the trade, occupation or
business of collecting, storing in pits and vaults, carting, selling,
delivering in various other ways, exposing on said premises on said
Winter Street the articles commercially and commonly designated
“night-soil;” that said trade, occupation or business is a noxious and
offensive trade and occupation, is a nuisance, is hurtful to the
inhabitants; is dangerous to the public health; that the exercize is
attended by noisome and injurious odors, offensive smells and
exhalations, and is otherwise hurtful and dangerous to the
neighborhood.

That your petitioners have applied to the Board of Selectmen of said
Town, acting as Board of Health, to prohibit said Johnson from the use
of said premises for the exercize of said trade, occupation or
business, and to cause said nuisance to be abated, removed and
prevented.

That said Board of Selectmen have failed to effectually remove said
nuisance and prevent the exercize of said trade on said premises.

Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray that said Johnson may be
prohibited from the further use of said premises for the exercize of
said trade, occupation or business, and that said nuisance may be
abated, removed and prevented.

   Petition signed by Wm. A. Fitzpatrick and 29 others

From the facinating newspaper abstracts site.

In the early 1970s as we pulled out of Vietnam, Richard Nixon went insane in the whitehouse, and Albert O. Hirshman wrote an facinating short book called Exit, Voice and Loyality: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations and States.

Hirshman, an economist, noticed that members of an organization have three broad choices about how to respond when the organization goes into decline.

• Exit – They can leave.
• Voice – They can argue for change.
• Loyality – They can remain silent and loyal.

Different situations demand different mixes of these three. One is far more likely to use voice and loyality to tackle a problem at home, say with your children. In the marketplace, particularly the markets of classical economics, the bias is toward using exit. Don’t like the TV show you’re watching? Change the channel.

I’m sure that recently many of us have wished we could change the channel and stop watching the war show. Politics is not the marketplace, it’s where you live.

Yesterday I listened on the radio to the impassioned plea of a man that now was a time for the nation to draw together. A time for loyality to our troups, to our President. A time for solidarity against the threat our nation faces. A threat that 9/11 so vividly illuminated.

Hirshman points out that there are situations where exit becomes extremely difficult – citizenship for example – and where then only voice and loyality remain as choices. He goes on to point out that in some such situations – criminal gangs, totalitarian regimes for example – voice maybe eliminated entirely.

Yesterday a number of people spoke out against today’s war, and a number of other people told them to shut up. When exit isn’t an option telling people to shut up is a very dangerous move.

It is thinking like this that leads: to loyality tests, to paranoia about outsiders, to interment camps.

Here’s a perfect example of how that reflex uncoils. The other day Richard Perle, one of the leaders of the neoconservative movement that advocates kicking some butt to make the world a better place called a famous and respected reporter a terrorist because he wrote an article pointing out some linkages between Perle’s business dealings and wealthy Saudi businessmen.

Or consider what the president said in during his only recent press conference speaking first about Mexico not getting onboard with the his war plans: “I don’t expect there to be significant retribution from the government (what’s significant?), but there might be a reaction like the interesting phenomena taking place here in America about the French, a backlash against the French, not stirred up by anybody except the people.” For those who oppose the United States, “there will be a certain sense of discipline.”

This kind of “your loyal or you’re out” is a big stick to pull out when people can’t exit. Mexico isn’t able to stop being our neighbor. The American population of people who look a bit like they might have come from Mexico can’t all up and leave. And here we find our President threating them all with “discipline”? It is offensive.

Those who are leading us into war are playing the loyality card. They are playing it to silence the voices of the rest of us. They should be more careful. They should be ashamed.