Interesting that the WSJ notices the effect of underpaying employees when it means they can't get their complimentary martinis in First Class.

Normally the WSJ could be counted upon to use this situation to advocate for a guest worker program to match "a willing employer with a willing worker," and find people to do jobs that "Americans aren't willing to do."

Posted at May 16, 2007 7:27 AM in response to Low Wages, Bad Service in the Airline Industry

The real issue is properly framed: How do we get "out of Iraq with as little long-term damage as possible?"

The issue is no longer "victory," only the seriously deluded believe that Iraq can become a multi-ethnic post-enlightenment liberal democracy under Malaki or anyone else.

The issue is now containment of the damage done by the Bush team's arrogance and incompetence. What America needs to think about is how to prevent Iraq from becoming the vortex for a regional Shia-Sunni conflict that could quickly spread to include forces from Egypt to the 'Stans, from Turkey to India, with some assists from Russia and the USA.

By focusing on terrorism instead of the larger Sunni/Shia regional conflict it has unleashed the Bush team is once again fixated on the wrong threat at the wrong time.

Posted at January 11, 2007 12:01 PM in response to The Delusion of Surging and Purging

The sad consequence of the Bush administration’s foreign policy stewardship over the past six years is that Washington is now a poor messenger for the Concert idea.

Now that's just like saying "The sad truth is that the election and re-election of the Bush administration proves this idea won't work."

The notion that Democracies (capital D, always) naturally share interests is nonsense. We don't even see that agreement among the Democracies of North America. (We don't even see that agreement between Republicans and Democrats!)

Most interesting about the Concert of Democracies is the unstated premise, the USA would be the conductor. This differs from the neocon American Empire in that it uses diplomacy instead of force, but the essential goals are the same. Why would any self-respecting nation agree to such a scheme?

Bush has proven this idea won't work, and those who propose it admit as much. Time to MOVE ON, there are important issues waiting for our attention.

Posted at December 20, 2006 8:12 AM in response to Fine-Tuning a Concert of Democracies

The Concert of Democracy reminds me of other theories crafted to grant the figleaf of moral authority to essentially amoral interests. Historically those theories revolved around faith, ideology and even familial relationship.

The UN Security Council is the "Gold Standard" because its authority comes from the assertion and alignment of national interests without regard to other theoretical superiorities. Such a statement tells the world that something is in the best interest of the entire world, not just this or that group withn the world.

So far as moral authority goes, it seems to me that any nation's moral authority arises from how that nation actually behaves. Such moral authority flows not only from how well it treats its citizens and allies, but also how it behaves towards foreigners and enemies.

The notion that a Concert of Democracies' interests will naturally align and thus grant greater moral authority than any other alignment of interests reminds me of claims for the "Holy Alliance" of Christian monarchs against the forces of democracy. It was a divergence of interests within that alliance that launched World War I.

Better to have our eyes wide open than to blinker ourselves with claims of theoretical moral authority and superiority.

Posted at December 14, 2006 11:27 AM in response to Great Powers vs. Democracies, Live in Concert

The Roman solution: Carthage, Jerusalem, etc.

Posted at December 9, 2006 11:23 AM in response to Choose sides

A Lieutenant who served two tours in Iraq told me this:

The only solution to Iraq is the Roman solution. No nation on earth can impose that solution today, so we're not going to solve anything with or without more troops.

Posted at December 9, 2006 10:23 AM in response to Choose sides

The White House prefers Shiites? That assumes that the GWB both knows and cares enough to have such a preference. There is simply no evidence that he does. None. Anywhere. Ever.

Bush believes in "democracy," and thinks it means that people get to vote. That's it. His thinking goes no deeper.

Bush doesn't understand culture. He assumes that anyone who doesn't acknowledge that our ways are superior to everyone else's are being petulant.

Bush doesn't understand ethnicity. He thinks it's great to have your own food and music (as long as he doesn't have to partake in them), but that that's the start and end of real differences between people. He honestly believes that everyone on earth is just like us, that everyone wants the same things we want the same ways we want them.

Bush's upset with Iraqis is because they haven't acknowledged that they really, truly, deep-down want to be just like us. Even George Will understands how moronic this guy is:

"Where's the leader?" Bush, according to Woodward, has exclaimed in dismay about the Iraqi government's dithering. "Where's George Washington? Where's Thomas Jefferson? Where's John Adams, for crying out loud?" For a president to ask that question about Iraq, that tribal stew, is enough to cause one to ask it about the United States

Writing that the White House prefers Shiites to Sunnis and Kurds assumes that Bush can tell the difference. I'm betting the truth is: "They all look the same to me."

Posted at December 9, 2006 10:06 AM in response to Choose sides

Google "Mubtakkar Zawahiri" and you'll read that the reason we haven't been attacked by Al Queda is because they made a tactical decision not to attack us. They believe there are more effective ways of achieving their goals than attacking the US.

To give credit where credit is due, it was Ayman Zawahiri who called off the attack, and made it clear that there should be no attacks in the near future.

Posted at September 9, 2006 6:12 PM in response to The Wrong Question to Ask

Loved this:

"The incomes of farmers, who remained farmers, increased, despite the fall in the prices of farm output, because the scale and productivity of farms was also increasing rapidly; the average farm, much larger and more mechanized, was producing vastly more at the end of the period than at the beginning. But, the average farmer at the beginning of the period was no longer a farmer at the end."

In other words: average in 1870 and 1895 were so vastly different, the dislocation so severe, that the vast middle of the bell curve got out of farming and farms themselves underwent conglomeration.

So how did the average farmer from 1870 fare? Did that person arrive in 1895 wealthier, the same, or peniless?

Posted at June 4, 2006 9:06 PM in response to 1870s Economics

From 2002, when the Bush Administration declared "acts of genocide" were being committed in Darfur until 2005, when the United States abstained from a UN vote to refer Sudan to the International Criminal Court, the USA obstructed international efforts there.

Why? For one, the Bush Administration didn't want to legitimize the ICC, from which it wanted blanket amnesty for American troops. For another, the Sudanese governement was providing information about Al Queda, thus joining Pakistan and Saudi Arabia as our "strong ally in the war on terror." Also the US took the official position that any peacekeepers should come from the African Union, and so blocked the UN from taking a role.

Posted at May 28, 2006 11:23 PM in response to The Return