Marginal Utility

by Ken Houghton

The standard for the word seriousness has, apparently, become using a phrase that doesn't mean what you would think it does.

In this corner, PhD #1, J. Bradford DeLong, lets Sebastian Mallaby define "economic seriousness." The result is predictable, though not pretty:

In the 2004 election, the Kerry-Edwards ticket forfeited its claim to economic seriousness by opposing trade deals such as the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

One would hope that DeLong—who has previously documented (PDF) and podcast that the gains from NAFTA do not approach what was promised—would know better.

Out of the fear that he doesn't, we present Ph.D. #2, Duncan Black discussing the difference between Free Trade (the economic concept) and "free trade":

And, unlike the axis of Mallaby and Friedman, I understand that not every treaty with the words "free trade" on the cover has all that much to do with "free trade." Even if one is basically pro-free trade, one can object to such things on the grounds that they don't go far enough (still protecting Big Sugar), or that they include unrelated intellectual property protections. [link in original]

CAFTA makes NAFTA look "fair and balanced." If DeLong is seriously endorsing the idea that not objecting to CAFTA should be considered "economic seriousness," both his and Berkeley's reputations are going to take a serious hit.

Labels: Brad DeLong, CAFTA, Economics, free trade, NAFTA, Politics, WaPo

by Ken Houghton

Via Duncan Black and Josh Marshall comes the Washington Post's "Is Iraq Lost?" letters.

Josh , trying to be evenhanded, notes:

In fairness, WaPo also quotes two others saying, in effect, "not yet." But both also suggest that the answer turns on just how much in the way of resources the U.S. is willing to sink into the conflict, which -- given the obvious limits on such resources -- is just a way of ducking the question.

So who are the two "ducking the question"? One, Paul Rieckhoff, was an Army platoon leader in Baghdad in the early part of the war. (That is, he hasn't been there since 2004.) The other,Kanan Makiya, is cited as an "Iraqi scholar who supported the U.S. invasion." Their statements in full:

Not yet Some people will say the Yankees have lost if they're down in the eighth inning. They'll get in their cars and leave. But some people will stay until the last pitch. It's not lost until we collectively decide it's lost. The question is, how much are you willing to pay? [Reickhoff]

It's up to you The Iraq war is lost or won if the American people choose to lose or win it. With the way things are going at the moment, I perfectly understand why they might choose to give up on the war. But that is not because the war is inherently unwinnable by a country as great and rich and powerful as the United States. [Makiya]

Reickhoff, in short, was there when the Mission was Accomplished—and then some. But now it's the bottom of the eighth and the Yankees are losing by several runs. The last time we saw this scenario, they brought in Mariano Rivera. Which that worked really well.

And Iraq scholar Makiya? Turns out he was born in Iraq, but doesn't live there and hasn't for a long time. (He's a professor at Brandeis and founder of The Iraq Foundation back in 1991.)

So he's not exactly an unbiased observer. In fact, he wrote this piece for the Guardian in February of 2003:

The United States is on the verge of committing itself to a post-Saddam plan for a military government in Baghdad with Americans appointed to head Iraqi ministries, and American soldiers to patrol the streets of Iraqi cities.

The plan, as dictated to the Iraqi opposition in Ankara last week by a United States-led delegation, further envisages the appointment by the US of an unknown number of Iraqi quislings palatable to the Arab countries of the Gulf and Saudi Arabia as a council of advisers to this military government.

The plan reverses a decade-long moral and financial commitment by the US to the Iraqi opposition, and is guaranteed to turn that opposition from the close ally it has always been during the 1990s into an opponent of the United States on the streets of Baghdad the day after liberation.

The bureaucrats responsible for this plan are drawn from those parts of the administration that have always been hostile to the idea of a US-assisted democratic transformation of Iraq, a transformation that necessarily includes such radical departures for the region as the de-Baathification of Iraq (along the lines of the de-Nazification of post-war Germany), and the redesign of the Iraqi state as a non-ethnically based federal and democratic entity.

The plan is the brainchild of the would-be coup-makers of the CIA and their allies in the Department of State, who now wish to achieve through direct American control over the people of Iraq what they so dismally failed to achieve on the ground since 1991.

I couldn't have said it better myself. However, I long ago realized that, in the Augean stables, there may be a chance of finding a pony, but it's not good odds, even if you beat the first set, that it's still a live one.

Labels: Iraq, Journamalism, WaPo

by Ken Houghton

I knew it was a mistake, but it was either this or Anne Applebaum explaining Alan Dershowitz's "interesting theories about torture: when and how it might legitimately be used, for example, given a candidate who might seem so clearly deserving of it."

Or doing something useful.

Cohen's column today is entitled Wasted Lives; strangely, instead of being his autobiography, it's an attack on the Democratic National Committee:

The word "wasted" came to mind.

That word has made something of a comeback. It was used by both Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama -- and the context was the present war in Iraq. McCain used the "W" word when he announced on the David Letterman show that he would run for president. "Americans are very frustrated, and they have every right to be," he said. "We've wasted a lot of our most precious treasure, which is American lives." Precisely so.

The Democratic National Committee, ever poised for the cheap shot, accused McCain of "insulting our brave troops" and demanded an apology. Others joined in, and McCain obliged, saying he should have used the word "sacrificed." Among the sacrifices being made, of course, is McCain's integrity.

There's something new.

Cohen continues, atemporally:

Earlier, Obama had also been caught uttering the truth. Soon after he announced for the presidency, the senator concluded a criticism of the war with the "W" word -- "over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted." Obama quickly apologized, confessing to a "slip of the tongue." He then reformulated his statement using the word "sacrifices." For some reason, the Democratic National Committee held its tongue.

Maybe they did, but it's not exactly as if there was a void of commentary from Michelle Malkin, Allah at Hot Air, and, of course, the Freepers.

And for those who only want their media mainstream, the Wall Street Journal.

And,by the way, which National Committee did attack Obama? Hint: Starts with an R. And it's still there, where even Richard Cohen might be able to find it (the latter link even quotes Cohen).

Eschaton should just retire the title to Cohen on any day his column appears.

UPDATE: Dr. Black's selection, while a noble choice, received the award for work on Monday. There is still hope for Mr. Cohen.

There appears to be none for Lawrence Mead, however. To excerpt the simplest delusion:

Nonworking men deserve to earn more, but they also must be required to work, as they seldom are today. Formerly, they could have entered the Army, where they could be ordered to work, and military service does help some men get their lives together. Unfortunately, today's volunteer military is too selective to accept most disadvantaged applicants.

Labels: Journamalism, volunteer army, WaPo

by Ken Houghton

Those in NYC may (or may not) wish to attend the gathering this coming Monday of Columbia University's Cafe Science series, in which Sylvia Nassar (author of A Beautiful Mind, which was adapted into an obscure art film) interviews mathematician John W. Morgan.

But it's the description that is eye-catching:

WHEN MATH MAKES HEADLINES OR HOW THE POINCARÉ CONJECTURE WOUND UP ON THE COLBERT REPORT

He got a Ben and Jerry's ice cream. And now he's being used to promote talking with a mathematician.

In some obscure corner of the universe, Richard Cohen is turning over in his grave.

Labels: Colbert, Columbia University, WaPo