New structuring of this page... Originally,
it was written before Dubya had really done
much of anything, so it was just predictions
of probabilities. Then I started trying to
update things to reflect newer developments,
which was actually a bad idea. Actually,
now that he's been in the White House for
a while, the harms are piling up like one
of his higher pies, so I'm leaving the predictions
alone, and just adding new comments about
the foulups at the bottom of this page. The
link at the right will jump directly to the
fresh meat...
February 2002
Original Harm Predictions:
This page is for listing what I think are
some of the main harms likely or possible
as a result of the young Bush's term of occupancy
of the White House. Each area of likely damage
appears in the order of seriousness of the
damage, with the most serious ones listed
first. I've also included an estimate as
to what I think the likelihood of each harm
is. Actually, the damage ranking also reflects
the probability--a very serious harm with
a lower probability may appear below a less
serious harm that has a very high probability
of happening. This is basically my considered
response to the people who say they think
Dubya may do a very good job, except they
seem unable to give a single concrete reason
why. Apart from the detail that it would
be the first time in his life, these are
concrete reasons why not.
This color is for the update of 29 September
2001, reflecting the short-term responses
to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 in NYC and
Washington, DC. Perhaps some of the items
should be shuffled up and down, too, but
waiting for a mid-range perspective first.
- Education
- Probability: 50%. Education is the future. Public education
is the flavor that is guaranteed for everyone,
even the people who aren't as rich as the
Bushes. School vouchers that can also be
used for private schools will weaken the
public schools, and they surely don't need
any additional weakening. I've written more on this crucial education topic elsewhere, and I want to keep these entries
fairly short. But in summary, an effective
school voucher system will pour public money
into the pockets of private interests, and
it will not improve the future of the public
OR the private interests. I'm trying to be
optimistic with a low probability estimate,
but I think this is the first time any president
has apparently supported this monster, while
possibly having the factional party votes
to push it through. As of this writing, the
first significant education legislation is
close to passage, and though this particular
relatively bipartisan legislation does not
seem too dangerous, the longer term prospects
remain uncertain.
- Federal Courts
- Probability: 80%. The Bushies are working hard to appoint as many federal
judges as possible, but they're doing it
in the worst possible way, by focusing on
conservative ideological considerations above
all else. They've even streamlined the nominee
selection procedure to exclude the American
Bar Association because they're just too
focused on such trifles as judicial competency.
A few months ago, I would not have regarded
this as a significant problem--excessively
weird decisions are usually overturned on
appeal, and even young appointees eventually
get old and go away. But the election shows
that it can matter, and it appears that Bush
is determined to appoint more judges who
will put political loyalty and ideological
considerations above all else. The only reason
the probability is less than 100% is because
people sometimes change and it's possible
to make mistakes in assessing how a judge
will act in the future. The probability dropped
a bit more when the Democrats took control
of the Senate. This gives them scheduling
control over the confirmation hearings, which
was a major tool the GOP used for blocking
Clinton's nominees.
- Economy
- Probability: 75%, now to 95%. Short summary is Bush is quite likely to
cause a serious economic depression. The
joke form is that depression, even economic
depression, is just a state of mind, and
Bush is fundamentally depressing. His bleak
mumblings could become a kind of self-fulfilling
prophesy, though of course he's too rich
to care. The non-joke form is that his economic
policies favor his rich friends over everyone
else, and this will tend to imbalance and
damage the economy. The tax cuts are just
the biggest and most visible example, and
Texas is already beginning to suffer from
the short-sighted tax cuts before Bush left.
I've also read a very persuasive argument
that there is a deliberate conservative attempt
to oppose government spending by making the
government bankrupt--a kind of forced thrift
campaign. The evidence is based on the history
of the Reagan and elder Bush presidencies.
This is a place where the grass roots supporters
of Bush seem especially irrational. They
insist that economic good was always caused
by their side and harms were caused by the
enemies, and there is apparently no evidence
that can convince them otherwise.
Another aspect of economic harms is balance
as in keeping the market fair and open, also
related to the Internet item mentioned below.
The 'well-connected' Bushies will favor certain
industries and even certain companies over
others, and the overall effect will be harmful
to the economy. Quite a number of blatant
examples already, mostly involving BIG oil
companies. Indirectly, the California situation
is another example, since a lot of their
electricity problems were apparently caused
by rate reforms instituted by a recent Republican
governor--which now produces lots of finger
pointing by the new Democratic governor.
An aspect related more directly to the Internet
is the Microsoft question, and their latest
actions show that Microsoft is sure they
have nothing to worry about now that their
GOP friends control the Justice Department.
What, me monopoly? In God we Anti-Trust.
It had already become clear that the economy
was having problems, but now the situation
has to be regarded as much worse than problematic.
I should just raise it to 100%, but maybe
there'll be some kind of miracle. Probably
require something like the arrival of friendly
aliens, however. Enron deserves special mention, too, but
since it isn't a probable harm, but an actual
harm, the Enron comments are in a kind of appendix below.
- Environment
- Probability: 80%. No surprise here. Actually, the only surprise
to me is that anyone apparently believed
anything else. The GOP has always been a
pro-big-business party, and the amazing thing
is how they tried to throw that accusation
at the Democrats in this last election. Anyway,
the predictable is happening, with the Bushies
making it clear that they want to call all
the shots in favor of making money, and the
future generations will just have to clean
up the extra mess. There are two mitigating
factors, however. One is public opinion,
which is already showing signs of offense
and producing at least some public mitigation
of the new policies. The other is that the
environment is big, and there are limits
to how much damage the Bushies can do in
a couple of years, even with the worst and
greediest intents.
- The American Military
- Probability: 60%. This is far down the list because it doesn't
really matter so much, at least in the current
world situation where there are no major
military threats to America. I suppose that
is cause for concern because of lowering
our guard too much, but I just can't believe
any country is liable to invade the States,
though there's plenty of likelihood of various
little wars around the world--and some still
in progress. This is actually another example
of hypocrisy in action, because the GOP is
supposed to be pro-military, even though
Bush himself is about as undisciplined and
unmilitary as anyone can be.
The minor reason I think he will be harmful
is just by being such a bad personal example.
He simply used the military as a way to avoid
getting shot at in Vietnam. It's obvious
that his political influence got him a highly
desirable slot as a safe pilot in a convenient
National Guard unit. (He only flew obsolete
fighters that would never be sent to Vietnam.)
He had the lowest admissible score on the
test, but was accepted over thousands of
other better qualified applicants. At public
expense he played with the planes for a couple
of years, and then just blew off the last
part of his commitment--and was apparently
honorably discharged, though his military
records remain secret. Every other public
figure I know of has been willing to release
his military records to the public, but not
George II. Just another 'young and irresponsible'
learning experience not to be confused with
'moral turpitude.'
The big reason is that supporting the military
costs money, but the rich Bushies want the
money for their big tax cuts. Already have
the evidence in the first budget submitted
by Bush, wherein military spending remains
at the level recommended by that 'immoral'
Clinton feller.
- War
- Probability: 45%, now to 90%. Actually, depending on how you define things,
I suppose you could say we're still at war
with Iraq, going back to his father's time
at the White House. This is a tough area
to assess, though the potential damage in
some worst case scenarios could be very high.
It seems pretty clear that even many of Bush's
supporters understand that war is rarely
safe and always has big costs. But who is
really making these decisions? And what does
Bush really believe? How badly does he want
to be a 'popular' wartime president? And
can he slip his leash if the others are trying
to hold him back? However, what can be said
for sure is that there's a lot more military
news and peculiar incidents and accidents
these days, and Bush has only been in Washington
for a couple of months. My assessment here
is mixed, reflecting a large probability
of small wars that probably won't hurt anything
too much--well, except for the people who
get killed, and they won't complain afterwards--,
and a small probability of a major war that
could cause a whole lot of grief. But war
is great for the polls...
This probability would go even higher except
that it isn't exactly clear how the declared
"war on terrorism" fits into the
definition of war. Also, though it is clear
that war is harmful, and that the United
States has been attacked, it isn't clear
how much additional harm is going to result
now. Who are we going to attack? How will
we attack them? Will it spread? Most of the
actual attackers were Saudi Arabians, but
that country is not a candidate to be attacked,
at least not while they continue to sell
us oil. Afghanistan isn't a very promising
target--the entire country is probably worth
less than the damage estimate for NYC. Pakistan
may collapse and become another Islamic republic.
The Bushies would probably like to use the
excuse to take out Saddam Hussein in Iraq,
but that could get messy. Iran has apparently
become an enemy, too, since Dubya said all
countries must join the U.S. and Iran said
they still disagree with Dubya, though they
officially censure terrorism. The only thing for sure
is that the bombs we make and then blow up
will not produce any lasting value for anyone.
Though the dictionary is clear enough, I
frankly think it will be impossible to create
any definition of terrorism that will be
widely accepted in the practical terms required
for international agreement.
- The Internet
- Probability: 75%. My estimate on this one mostly reflects
a need for positive action rather than a
simple avoidance of mistakes. The Internet
is a complicated system with a number of
significant problems that don't make sense
in conventional dollars and cents terms,
but those are the only terms the Bushies
sort of understand. I keep thinking of Akio
Morita's discussion of how he made the decisions
that built Sony. Yes, many of them were smart
business decisions, but he always felt his
technical background was helpful in making
better decisions, and even in learning from
his mistakes. (He didn't mention his un-Dubya-like
high intelligence, but that was obvious and
would have been boastful. My recollection
is that the topic was related to his mistaken
decision for Sony to basically drop digital
electronics in favor of analog for several
years.)
On the plus side, I think the Internet has
incredible potential to do good, and many
people are fundamentally disposed to learn
and want the information that only the Internet
can provide. However, on the negative side,
the Internet doesn't make much or any traditional
economic sense, and the Bushies are liable
to poison the well trying to make sure they
can sell the water for the best price. Also,
they want to 'protect' a lot of clueless
old companies that they just happen to own.
Constructively guiding the Internet calls
for technical savvy Bush can't even comprehend,
and the kind of creativity that Harvard MBAs
are famously lacking. Reminds me of working
for an Internet-related company with a Harvard
MBA whose poor management helped the company
tank--a couple of million dollars right down
the drain. With better management, both financial
and technical, it could have become one of
the leading ISPs of Japan rather than a dot.com
leader in going bust. But Bush's actions
and inactions can affect the entire Internet...
However, a big new factor on the negative
side--First Amendment Zones. The GOP has
been using these to control the appearance
of dissent for a while now, though I only
heard about the practice recently [late June
of 2001]. I am mostly appalled that the conventional
media have apparently been ignoring it. There
was a time when they actively supported the
First Amendment. Remember the Internet is
fundamentally designed as one giant First
Amendment Zone. Censorship may be the worst
kind of damage, but the Internet will try
to route around ALL damage. What they can't
control, they may well choose to destroy,
and now I think we must consider the possibility
of deliberate actions to hurt the Internet.
Even though it was obviously important to
the Clinton prosperity, the rich Bushies
don't need that kind of 'tainted' prosperity.
- Public Trust in Government
- Probability: 95%. I admit this one is a kind of trick question.
I think distrust of government is actually
a good thing, and was a central design principle
guiding those great liberal intellectuals
who designed America's system of government.
From that perspective, one can argue that
everything Bush does to discredit himself
and to damage the reputation of the government
is kind of good. Still, on the balance I
have to say that it is bad, because you fundamentally
can't get rid of power--it exists and has
to be controlled. I think that intelligence
and integrity and honesty are all important
for exercising proper control, and Bush has
none of the above. He may do great damage,
or maybe his collective cloud of Bushies
will avoid major damage, but even in that
case, they reaffirm the new GOP tradition
that 'stupid is good', and I just won't buy
that. By the way, this is where I regard
the GOP as inferior to the Democratic Party,
though I'm not politically motivated and
prefer to vote by the candidates, not by
the parties. But at the national level, the
GOP seems to have decided that fools are
marketable and safe winners. Intelligent
and honest Republicans like Dole are regarded
as sure losers, and even the most unthinking
knee-jerk born Republicans would agree Nixon
was a mistake not to be repeated--intelligent
and dishonest and downright dangerous.
Closing this entry on a weird note, I'll
say that I do think the American system of
government is obviously very sick and needs
major healing--of a kind that may not be
possible now. The process of selecting George
II as resident of the White House is only
one of the symptoms of the excessive power
of the lawyers. Nevertheless, Dubya himself
is just a minor disease, though definitely
NOT part of the cure. Some people sincerely
feel that we need another American Revolution
to clean house, but... I just can't buy that.
The outcome would be uncertain, the improvements
would probably be marginal, and a real revolution
would be certain to hurt a lot of people.
However, if the system keeps changing in
negative ways, eventually it will have to
collapse--best efforts of the bogus conservatives
of the GOP notwithstanding. Principled conservatism
and fear of losing your big house are NOT
the same thing.
Another extension is regarding the specific
trust in the presidency, but that also calls
for a separate treatment elsewhere...
That's all for now, but I might add more
as writing time and evidence allow. Or maybe
if you send me your suggestion via the JavaScript-encrypted
email link below.
Mostly 9 December 2001 and 20 January 2002
This is mostly speculation outside of my
field, which makes it more fun, but... I
have been watching the stock market for a
number of years, and even own a few thousand
shares of this and that—but it works
funny in yen with little shares in large
numbers. Yes, I'm mostly mystified and long
ago concluded that the stock prices have
lost all touch with economic realities, but
there must still be some rhyme or reason
somewhere in there. So...
The basic background information is that
Enron was a young, very large, and apparently
hugely successful company from Texas. At
one point Enron was apparently larger (in
market capitalization) and possibly more
powerful and influential than Microsoft.
Their official goal was to pass Exxon, which
given Exxon's record of environmental damage...
Can't say they weren't ambitious. Anyway,
they were also Dubya's biggest campaign contributors
and Enron's managers had lots of close personal
ties to various GOPpies. They were originally
involved in natural gas, but very rapidly
expanded into many energy-related fields
and then into bits of everything. And then
they suddenly burst like a bubble. It actually
takes a little while for such a big balloon
to explode, and the problems have been emerging
for several months. I actually suspect that
one of the things distracting the Bushies
from domestic security before the 9/11 disaster
was that they were probably trying hard (and
extremely secretly) to save Enron. To no
avail. Enron filed for bankruptcy protection
last week. Current stock price is about 1/300th of the peak value and I think they'll be
delisted as soon as possible.
Though very little solid information has
been released so far, my hypothesis as to
what happened is that Enron was basically
a kind of shell game. There were lots of
companies involved, and money was being shuffled
hither and yon, and each time it was counted
up, the value of everything was apparently
larger. The basic enabling environment was
the deregulation the GOPpies had been pushing
for so many years, though actually a lot
of the natural gas deregulation was finally
started by President Carter. Enron actually
appeared around 1985, and Gramm's wife was
involved from the beginning, though I'm not
sure when Dubya got so buddy-buddy with them.
After Dubya shuffled into the White House,
the Enron folks apparently thought they had
clear sailing, so they gave it one more big
push and suddenly the whole house of cards
collapsed. However, one of the few solid
facts is that Enron needed support from the
government, and they invested heavily in
any politician who seemed likely to provide
some. Too bad Dubya let them down, eh? A
current joke relates to Dubya's nickname
for Enron's chief, Ken Lay: Kenny Boy.
- Ken Lay:
- Knock, knock.
- Dubya:
- Who's there?
- Ken Lay:
- Your old friend and No. 1 campaign donor,
Kenny Boy!
- Dubya:
- Kenny who?
The main proximate victims seem to be the
employees of Enron, especially the ones with
their 401(k) pensions tied up in Enron stock,
which is now worth a little more than toilet
paper. (Yeah, Dubya wanted to allow every
to gamble their social security on the stock
market.) Of course, a lot of non-affiliated
companies and creditors are getting burned,
too. However, the bigger danger is that a
lot of what destroyed Enron is not that different
from the accounting practices of many other
big companies, and therefore those companies,
too, may be at risk.
What I've concluded from studying the financial
reports over the years is that the goal of
the most common shell game is to make the
main central part of the company look as
good as possible. However, there is a fundamental
problem in doing this. To 'look good' in
the required sense calls for size, high growth,
and excellence, and it's fundamentally impossible
to do them all at once; you can raise the
average, but you can't abolish it. Therefore,
many companies use accounting tricks similar
to those that destroyed Enron, though most
companies are obviously less aggressive about
it. The trick is to isolate the main central
part of the company, and make sure it is
excellent and tightly focused on the most
profitable and fastest growing parts of the
business. The truth is that it couldn't look
that good without the support of various
other subsidiary companies, but the accounting
is done to separate things out, even though
it's really all directed to the single goal.
Many of those subsidiaries may be in less
profitable areas, or may even be relatively
poorly managed and staffed by third stringers,
some of them may even be losing money and
be up for sale, but none of this matters
as long as the flagship company looks good.
In Enron's case, several hundred were apparently
offshore tax dodges, to boot. I'd like to
give some examples, but I really have nothing
more than suspicions... However, I'll say
that I'm very glad to have gotten most of
my money out of Citibank, and I hope they
hold together long enough for me to recover
the last bit. Anyway, most companies probably
are quite competently managed and not the
kind of hollow shell that Enron was. However,
the point is that Enron's accounting techniques
were not completely unique or preposterous,
though Anderson was increasingly nervous,
and at the end even destroyed some of the
important records.
It's actually a question of balance, and
how Enron wound up out of balance. A simple
and hopefully relevant example involves the
auditors for any publicly held company. You
probably know that there are two kinds, internal
and external. The internal auditors are employees
of the company. They do the internal books
and budgets, and follow up to make sure the
money is spent the way it's supposed to be
spent. They have to account for every nickel
and dime (or yen), and they're the guys who
say what the bottom line profit and loss
is. They are also supposed to make sure no
one within the company is playing any games
with the money. However, the internal auditors
still aren't to be trusted fully, which is
where the external auditors come into the
picture. That was Anderson in Enron's case.
They are an outside company whose special
expertise is checking the competence of the
internal auditors. They normally don't do
all the numbers again, but they are supposed
to check enough to offer their official opinion
that the internal auditors are giving good
scoop. And that's why the external auditors
for Enron are also being sued in this mess.
They were supposed to detect the problems
and warn the stockholders. Kind of hilarious
for Enron to fire them at this late stage,
but it's also supposed to be part of the
external auditor's job to guide the company
away from risks that could cause bankruptcy.
The complete economic situation of a company
like Enron is obviously very complicated,
with various competitive pressures driving
things hither and yon. For example, by making
its accounting position look good, Enron
facilitated its ability to make deals, so
sometimes the questionable accounting was
a kind of prediction that could become a
self-fulfilling prophesy. However, there
is also a reality principle involved, and
protecting reality is supposed to be one
of the roles of the government—defining
fair rules and making sure that every company
is playing by the same rules. For example,
it is basically the government that requires
external auditors in the first place. And
now we're back to where I think Enron messed
up. With their boy Dubya in D.C., they thought
they could tee up and really drive a big
one. Plop. Fizz. No more Enron. But how many
other companies are travelling the same road?
Dubya has LOTS of big corporate donors. How
many other companies have changed their actions
based on their supposed friend in the White
House?
An interesting question now is "Who
dunnit?" When there's been a crime you're
supposed to look for someone who benefitted
from it. Near as I can see right now, the
only folks to come out well on this one are
the Enron executives who dumped hundreds
of millions of dollars worth of Enron stock
when it was still worth something. The executives
actually started selling a while ago, but
the critical questions are when did they
find out the company was in trouble, and
how much stock did they sell after finding
out, and I can't find any hard data there.
Lots of lawsuits have been filed asking the
same questions, but it will surely take years
before the courts decide. Some politicians
benefitted from the contributions. Most especially,
Dubya used the money to bad effect, and as
far as I know he isn't even named in any
of the lawsuits. Dubya 'wins' again, though
it wasn't as good as his big trifecta.
Is there a conclusion lurking around here?
Well, let's call it a hypothesis. The GOP
has always been the party of big business
and big money, and they still are. Doesn't
work so well with the voters, since most
of them aren't big-time businessmen. The
GOP solution? Accuse the Democrats of being
the party of big business and big money,
and repeat frequently, even if it is mostly
a lie. Enron is apparently just a case where
big-business crooks got a too much rope from
their GOP buddies and managed to hang themselves
right proper. Hard for me to believe they
have NO imitators. Dubya certainly has plenty
of other friends with big corporations. Looking
at the ones that already gave him a lot of
money, Citibank is standing out again...
26 December 2001
Didn't I already write this somewhere on
this Web site? Anyway, I can't find it, so
I may be repeating myself, but it's quite
worth repeating that the president is not
any kind of a deity or god.
It would be easy to think otherwise if you
read some of the commentary, though the commentary
never addresses the real reasons for this
deification. It's also very clear that this
is NOT what the designers of our government
wanted. They knew very well that any government
is made of people, and they will act like
human beings, not like gods, and to the best
of their ability they designed the government
to minimize these problems for many years.
Though I do think we were very fortunate
that their abilities and wisdom were so far
above average, they weren't gods either,
and I must sadly conclude that their design
for checks and balances based on a clear
separation of powers is wearing out.
Such religious commentary about the president
actually comes in two flavors, negative and
positive, though both are equally harmful
in different ways, and both forms are increasing
in their intensity over the years. Of course
that means that the best examples are the
most recent, and so the best examples of
negative commentary are the recent criticisms
of President Clinton regarding his little
affair. No one is saying that it was the
right thing to do, but it was a very human
error. The BIG problem is that it was very
ungodly. The loudest critics screamed and cried loudly
enough to come within a few partisan votes
of success in their destructive plans. Failing
there, they continued to do everything they
could to disrupt the government and even
based their next presidential campaign on
the issue.
For positive examples, Reagan and Dubya offer
the best examples, though they were rather
different instantiations. In the case of Reagan, he was nothing but
a facade for the religious commentary, and
his professional training was quite appropriate—as
an actor he played many roles. Though he
was never regarded as a great actor, no doubt
he found it simpler as president, when he
only had one role to play. For Dubya, the
intensity of the commentary is actually somewhat
stronger, but his ability to properly play
the part is amazingly weaker. The cognitive dissonance is apparently getting
to some of his supporters, who sometimes
wind up criticizing him in the religious
terms they're supposed to be saving for liberals
and other 'enemies of the Fatherland.' Or
perhaps they just can't remember any other
way to talk now?
So now to the topic of why it happens? Simple,
actually. It sounds like religion, and it
IS a kind of religion, though a secular one. The president has become a kind of supreme
deity. So why do people want a god? Because
they encounter problems that they can't solve,
so they want to appeal to a more powerful
being to solve their problems. Actually,
that's the lower form of motivation, but
it applies to many people, and it actually
makes quite a bit of sense as it applies
to the president. He really does control
vastly more resources than most people, and
he really could solve a lot of our personal
problems if he would just direct a bit of
those resources our way. A higher form of basically the same motivation
is to want a higher being to provide a higher
framework for our incurable and unmerited
suffering. As this version applies (somewhat
awkwardly) to Dubya, his advisors are supposed
to have the complete information that explains
why our suffering can't be helped.
My belief is that the founders of our government
understood these problems pretty well. It
actually helped that they had so much firsthand
experience with very human kings who claimed
to have divine rights over others. They didn't
have a perfect solution, but they did have
a number of good ideas. It's really hard
to see clearly from so far away, but mostly
because our perspective is colored by distorted
reporting and more of that idolation that
they abhorred. They didn't create a perfect
system, but a good system that was flexible
and adaptable, and now perhaps the main source
of confusion is to blur many of the resulting
changes into their original intentions. Some
of it was their innovative and excellent
ideas, and other parts were added over the
years. The most important example here is
that they understood that someone had to
be responsible for acting on behalf of the
government, but that executive authority
could be abused and needed to be controlled.
The original system of checks and balances
mostly involved binding the president to
the laws passed by the legislature and putting
the spending authority in the part of the
legislature most directly linked to the voters.
The idea of the judiciary acting as the arbitrator
between those branches was added later, but
it was a brilliant addition.
For what little it is worth, I mostly blame
the negative changes on the same men who
are regarded as the greatest presidents,
especially Lincoln and FDR. These men faced
great crises and rose to meet them, but in
their need to act forcefully and effectively,
they permanently tilted the balance of power
in favor of the executive branch, and ultimately
the presidency became imperial and supreme
uber alles. It would be interesting to have
a debate as to which was more harmful, though
I think I'd give the nod to Lincoln for two
counts. I credit him as the main creator
of the modern political party, which has
mostly become a regressive and even repressive
institution, and he deliberately cancelled
the true intention of the Second Amendment,
though it is also true that his decision
to oppose succession ultimately led to America's
preeminence.
Time for the sad conclusion, and I'll try
to keep it brief though there is much more
that could be said. The current situation
is very different from what it should be.
Yes, the Constitution still exists, but most
of the important ideas within it are ignored.
Just focusing on the examples mentioned above,
most of the legislation is now initiated
by the executive branch to support their
political agenda of the moment, and the position
of Congress is basically a trivial tally
board. Does the president have the votes
or might he have to compromise a bit? Rather
than forcing the House to assume full responsibility
for the money, the president prepares the
budget, and once it is approved, the latest
great abuse, the line item veto, allows him
to go through and individually kill any expenditure
he doesn't approve of. As far as the independence
of the judiciary, "our considerations
are limited to" the alegal abuse of
December 12, 2000. A very sad end, and I
hope I'm not caught in the final collapse,
which may well come within my lifetime.
2-11/2/2002
Nothing Succeeds Like Failure:
How to Lose the War on Terrorism without
Really Trying,
and become Really (?) Popular in Easy Steps
Since 9/11 we hear lots about the war on
terrorism, and so here's a bit more. However,
the focus here is mostly on what is required
to prevent it, and how goes the war, too.
This presentation is focused on the anti-terrorist
perspective, but almost everything here has
a terrorist perspective, too, and not always
the direct opposite, so things get complicated
there. However, the bottom line is that dealing
with terrorism is complicated, and the conclusion
is that Dubya's failures in dealing with
such complicated matters are no surprise.
Here's the basic outline:
- Terrorism must be opposed as effectively
as possible,
- Dubya's imbalanced approaches obviously failed,
- The war on terrorism needs clever tactics,
and
- We need deep and balanced strategic thinking.
Let's begin with the $64 question: Could
the attacks of September 11th been prevented?
Actually a trick question. Remember that
unless you say yes, then you are saying they
can happen again. From the perspective of
someone who wants to reassure Americans,
this is not a good thing, but... Maybe it's
just the way things are in this imperfect
world. On the other hand, if you want to
say we are secure now, then it must have
been possible to be secure before September
11th, and you have to ask why we were not.
Or in slightly different words, if it was
impossible to be secure at that time, then
it must still be impossible now. Well, it
seems like all roads lead to to the same
Rome—There's no perfect security in
this perfect world.
Time to divide the issue on the tactical and strategic levels. Tactics are small scale, and easier to deal with, so
that's where I'll start. Tactics are what you use to win a battle, but terrorism doesn't have regular battles.
The counterpart for terrorism is the plot, which in most ways is similar to a crime, such as a bank
robbery. Perhaps this tactical
similarity between terrorist plots and crimes is why most legal theory regards
terrorist attacks as crimes, rather than as acts of war. However, for this discussion
I'm going to consider plots to be more like races between the terrorists and the defenders.
A new plot has three tactical stages: hatching, preparations, and execution. There are
counterstrategies for each stage, though mostly for the
last two. The plotters are racing to complete the three stages, and the defenders are racing to disrupt the
plot. Very bad when the plotters win the race, but most of the time they don't make it.
For the first stage, about all you can do to abort the hatching of plots is to design
systems that have no weaknesses
or vulnerabilities, and that's really hard to do. Complicated systems tend to have problems and failures,
including disastrous ones, even without deliberate attacks by adversaries.
Complicated plots involve a lot of preparation, and during the preparations the defenders usually have the best
chance to detect the plot and break it up. You don't hear so much about these cases, though I'm pretty sure that
this is as far as most plots get. This kind of very effective action just doesn't make for big impressessive
stories. If it's done properly, there are just a few quiet arrests
and some nice, smooth trials followed by nice, long jail sentences. In other cases, the plotters may
abandon the plot during this stage, deciding it's unfeasible, or not worth it, or even irrelevant.
Disrupting plots during the executation stage is the stuff that Hollywood loves, so you've seen plenty of
movies and television shows with these themes and I don't have to say much. However, I will note that
there are some very big differences between
real life and the movies. The most important one is that the good guys don't die in most movies. Less important,
but still significant
is the question of odds. In the movies the good guys are normally outnumbered and outgunned, while in real life the
authorities always have more people and more force available. However, this kind of anti-terrorist action is
intrinsically very dramatic and exciting.
Each of these terrorist plots is like a new race. On one side, the terrorists are rushing to complete their
preparations and execute their plot, and on the other side we have the anti-terrorist forces, our
defenders, racing to detect and foil the plots. Who wins a race? It comes down to preparation, effort,
and luck. The joke form is that the battle is not always won by the strong, and the race is not always to
the swift, but that's the way to bet.
The anti-terrorist preparations have to be broad and balanced, otherwise it's like an athelete who spends one
week training one muscle, and the next week working on some other muscle. Such an athelete is not going to
win many races. There was actually a very broad and balanced evaluation of domestic airline security
completed just as Dubya moved into the White House. It identified a number of problem areas and offered a number
of concrete recommendations. It was not ignored—at first. However, it was considered tainted, since it had
been performed during the Clinton presidency, so in April, Dubya told Congress to drop the matter
and wait for another evaluation to be done by Cheney. The previous report had taken a couple of years to complete, but
the new one had not even been started when the attacks of September 11th shuffled all the priorities around.
This actually resulted in a violent shift in directions and a sudden, imbalanced, adoption of parts of the
earlier report's recommendations.
Effort is mostly a matter of motivation, positive and negative.