nerdgirl

Lawrence Livermore National Lab (LLNL), one of the US nuclear weapons labs, laid off/fired 164 weapons scientists at the end of May: ~60 engineers, 30 physicists, & ~15 chemists. LLNL is lead Dept of Energy lab for maintaining technical stockpile surety, i.e., confidence that the US nuclear weapons stockpile would function as intended. Speculation of US weapons scientists taking their knowledge overseas is hyperbole. But it does expose something of a internal inconsistency: through programs like Cooperative Threat Reduction – which I very strongly support – the US is paying for former Soviet weapons scientists (most nuclear and biological weapons scientists and engineers) to be retrained and pursue non-weapons/non-offensive work (as opposed to taking their skills and knowledge to Iran, DPRK, Syria). The CTR FY08 budget was $426M, which for a DoD program is small. And it’s accomplishments have been very large: >6,000 former Soviet nuclear warheads deactivated, >500 former Soviet ballistic missiles eliminated, ~120 former Soviet strategic bombers eliminated, ~450 former Soviet missile silos eliminated, 26 former Soviet ballistic missile submarines destroyed, upgraded storage and transportation of nuclear material and weapons, 150 metric tons of weapons-grade uranium eliminated, a major biological weapons production plant eliminated, construction of Shchuch’ye chemical weapons destruction facility, and ~50,000 former offensive weapons program chemical, biological, nuclear, and missile scientists supported in peaceful research work. The LLNL lay-offs are just as much a result of the Bechtel/Battelle management take-over as anything and LLNL employees became government contractors (“GoCos”). Lay-offs are expected at Los Alamos National Lab (LANL) as well. The Defense Science Board (DSB) has a Permanent Task Force on Nuclear Weapons Surety and two ad hoc task forces currently on Nuclear Weapons Effects National Enterprise and Nuclear Deterrence Skills. The DSB and the NNSA (part of Dept of Energy) have been asserting for over a decade that the lack of new individuals with the knowledges and skills in nuclear weapons design is a potential US security threat. Excerpts from the 2006 “Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Future Strategic Strike Skills,”: “It appears that a serious loss of certain critical strategic strike skills may occur within the next decade as senior design and operations personnel retire [or get laid off by Bechtel/Battelle? - nerdgirl]. The strategic strike area most at risk today is ballistic missiles: Current skills may not be able to cope with unanticipated failures requiring analysis, testing, and redesign. Design skills are rapidly disappearing, both for major redesigns of current systems and for the design of new strategic systems. DoD and industry have difficulty attracting and retaining the best and brightest students to the science and engineering disciplines relevant to maintaining current and future strategic strike capabilities.” US kids who are smart enough to be seriously entertaining notions of pursuing studies and careers in technical fields are also smart enough to see that there are not a lot of jobs if one becomes specialized in certain fields. Is it in the US national interest to ensure that individuals with such knowledge be gainfully employed and that a new cadre of individuals with such knowledge be fostered? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Remember when the shooting of the Quran hit the press. This, not as much. Kind of difficult to find. It is not anywhere on CNN. CNN story: Hundreds of New Testaments torched in Israel "Police in Israel are investigating the burning of hundreds of New Testaments in a city near Tel Aviv, an incident that has alarmed advocates of religious freedom. "Investigators plan to review photographs and footage showing "a fairly large" number of New Testaments being torched this month in the city of Or-Yehuda, a police spokesman, Micky Rosenfeld, said Wednesday. "News accounts in Israel have quoted Uzi Aharon, the deputy mayor of Or-Yehuda, as saying he organized students who burned several hundred copies of the New Testament. The deputy mayor gave interviews to Israeli radio and television stations after word of the incident surfaced about two weeks ago. "Soon he was talking with Russian, Italian and French television stations, "explaining to their highly offended audiences back home how he had not meant for the Bibles to be burned, and trying to undo the damage caused by the news (and photographs) of Jews burning New Testaments," The Jerusalem Post reported. "Aharon told CNN on Wednesday that he collected New Testaments and other "Messianic propaganda" that had been handed out in the city but that he did not plan or organize a burning. Instead, he said, three teenagers set fire to a pile of New Testaments while he was not present. Once he learned what was going on, he said, he stopped the burning."There were lots of commerical media stories on the incident. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Thanks for the attachments. Those are very impressive! What is the DISD (the public school district in Dallas, yes?) doing specifically? It looks like threre's strong citizen support for public education in Dallas, e.g., the voters just approved a $1.35B bond issue in May. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Does it? Really? Or were rationalizations/explanations found within religious text on which to base the domestic policy? I don’t know enough about Iranian domestic drug policy and enforcement to comment authoritatively and it wasn't addressed in the article; I can pose the question that has been the case w/other domestic policies. One, two, or 178 examples of Iranian progressive domestic policies would not change my fundamental opposition to fundamentalist theocracies. By counter-example, I disagree with the UK’s domestic policy of banning most privately owned handguns; I wouldn’t advocate for US foreign policy toward the UK to support regime change (or not advocate for regime change) based on that domestic policy. I agree with those that assert that the Iranian regime is repressive. That’s not the sole or critical point on which I would recommend basing US foreign policy nor should be the US foreign policy priority toward Iran. (My recommended US foreign policy priorities: No nuclear weapons in Iran, ending Iranian support for terrorist groups, & decreasing the risk of diversion of civilian nuclear capabilities to offensive nuclear weapons programs.) Thanks for the link. The story does highlight that the Iranian Supreme Leader is open to rational behavior in the interest of his nation’s stability. The negative impact of AIDS on stability and security of states has been shown repeatedly. The article mentions the rise on heroin use as connected to the Taliban in Afghanistan: “Heroin use rose abruptly about five years ago [2000], when the Taliban rulers in neighboring Afghanistan sharply reduced opium production. That drove up the price of opium, leading people who had been smoking or swallowing it to switch to heroin, which remained comparatively cheap. Because heroin is often injected, the switch resulted in a surge of HIV infections as users shared needles.” After the Taliban were removed from (total) control, opium production surged and they (the Taliban) changed their policy as illicit sales became its principal market commodity. President Karzai has rejected US requests for aggressive eradication efforts, i.e., spraying glyphosate, aka “RoundUp.” What has led to a decrease in poppy cultivation for illegal drugs? The recent increase in food commodity prices. “In parts of Helmand Afghan farmers are this year sowing wheat instead of poppy - not because they have suddenly been converted to the argument that producing heroin is not in the national interest. “Market forces have been the deciding factor - with wheat prices doubling in the past year, and the street price of heroin falling, it is now more cost effective to grow wheat.” Undermining the Taliban and security & stabilization of Afghanistan’s government are the US foreign policy priorities for Afghanistan. Decreasing opium cultivation is another US foreign policy goal w/r/t Afghanistan (& its connection to the two priorities are recognized). No one proposed that any part of US strategy to accomplish those goals be to instigate a global food “crisis.” But the rise in food commodity prices is having that effect. How is the Iranian domestic drug policy impacted by that? I wouldn’t recommend US foreign policy on Iran include either flooding Iran with heroin or instigating a global food "crisis." Nota bene: “Tit for Tat” isn’t a realist international relations “theory.” It’s part of regime “theory,” which is liberal or neo-liberalist. And that’s “theory” in the social science meaning of the word not the physical science usage. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Thanks for passing that along. I probably would not have seen it otherwise. As the Presidency of GHW Bush (Sr) is moving into history (>10y) and some thoughtful historical evaluations are appearing. I have been most impressed looking back at his subtle diplomatic choices and the underlying wisdom toward the Soviet Union in dealing with the fall of the Berlin Wall. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

You do realize that it's the "Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects," yes? It's about enabling an international legal mechanism to limit the sale and distribution and make criminal the actions illegal arms dealers who sell to al Qa'eda; Hezbollah; the Taliban; Algeria’s GIA, Philippines MORO and Abu Sayyaf, Columbia’s FARC and ELN, Lebanon’s Asbat al-Ansar, Pakistan’s Jaysh-e-Mohammed, rebel groups in Sierra Leone, Angola, Sudan, ect; and transnational organized crime. Your (assumedly) legally acquired firearm is not the issue. Article 10: "Reaffirming also the right of each State to manufacture, import and retain small arms and light weapons for its self-defence and security needs". Clearly delineates not directed toward intra-state (i.e., domestic for those of us in the US) laws:Article 8. "Reaffirming our respect for and commitment to international law and the purposes and principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, including the sovereign equality of States, territorial integrity, the peaceful resolution of international disputes, non-intervention and non-interference in the internal affairs of States." It's not about legally owned and operated firearms. Illegal and criminal trafficking and sale of small arms internationally are the issues. Article 5. "Recognizing that the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects sustains conflicts, exacerbates violence, contributes to the displacement of civilians, undermines respect for international humanitarian law, impedes the provision of humanitarian assistance to victims of armed conflict and fuels crime and terrorism. Article 6. "Gravely concerned about its devastating consequences on children, many of whom are victims of armed conflict or are forced to become child soldiers ... Article 7. "Concerned also about the close link between terrorism, organized crime, trafficking in drugs and precious minerals and the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons, and stressing the urgency of international efforts and cooperation aimed at combating this trade simultaneously from both a supply and demand perspective." While I can hope that you might re-evaluate your opinions & conclusions, I recognize that there's a tremendous amount of mis-information that's been clouded by rhetoric & connections to domestic gun control/restriction efforts. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I'm not sure if I'm just not understanding your proposal correctly (always a possibility), much of what seems to be suggested sounds like the underlying thesis of Edward Herman & Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Yet, President Nixon did not do that. Even Kissenger did not push that agenda. President Ford did not continue that line of thought either. It was President Carter that created formal ties with PRC, forcing a formal cut with ROC-Taiwan. Since then, China has stated repeated rhrtoric of its right to a "one China". I’m not sure to what part you are replying here. I’m reading your response as you agree that President Nixon met with Mao in 1972 with the goal to initiate diplomacy on normalizations of relations between the two states and to address the principal security situations of the time, i.e., southeast Asia & Taiwan. And recognition that diplomacy takes time, e.g., the Taiwan Relations Act was not signed and ratified (nevermind the SCOTUS case) until >6 years later, that the actions of one administration can have strong impact on later administrations, and that normalization of relations for increased security is non-partisan. SecState Kissinger -- as a master of realpolitik -- had little to no interest in regime change or pro-democratic movements. His interest was in regimes/governments that would cooperate beneficially with the US in support of US foreign policy goals, e.g., Latin America policy of the 1970s supporting less than upstanding representatives of free democracies, such as General Pinochet’s regime in Chile, with the oppressive military junta in Argentina, Uruguay, etc. I’m not sure that’s what you intended, tho’. Why? (Not trying to agree or disagree here but to understand your thinking.) What do you see as the US imperative to force Iran to focus inward? I laid out some initial points that could be used: In my post (#47) outlining US foreign policy goals toward Iran (i.e., what I think they should be), Goal #2 is “Ending Iranian support for terrorist groups. Stop providing equipment, training, and other tacit support to Hezbollah, Hamas, and other regional militias.” In the post above your response and in post #53, I cited economic pressures that may destabilize Iran. It’s not clear whether those economic pressures will strengthen or weaken the conservative or the reformist position. I would assert that the more Ahmadinejad can push the internal debate on Iran’s economic troubles to “the evil US/the great Satan,” (i.e., a real case of “blame the US”) the stronger the hardline, fundamentalist, conservative position will be … & make it more difficult for achieving US foreign policy goals. From a strategic/national security perspective, in the end achieving US foreign policy goals are what I’m most interested in (… by lawful, ethical, reasonable means). The idealist argument is that Iran is a repressive theocratic dictatorship. They are evil. Therefore it is the US responsibility to push for regime change. Is that the reasoning that you would recommend for the next US administration and should regime change be the top US foreign policy goal? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Concur. Also along the Colorado Front Range/I-25 corridor (locally-led initiative and the tracks already there). Central Florida "Bullet Train." The biggest anecodotal problem with rail that I used to encounter (Chicago to Champaign IL) was unpredictability. The majority of rail is now owned by private sector. Passenger rail (e.g., Amtrak) is required to slow down, stop, and wait for (sometimes) slower freight trains. Sensible sharing or prioiritized commuter rail sharing is fantastic, e.g., the DC to NYC & NYC to Boston trains (altho' not cheap), and "wildly successful" economically. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Last week the Washington Post featured an Op-ed “ A Sensible Path on Iran ” by Zbigniew Brzezinski and LTG William Odom, USA (ret) offering their recommendations US foreign policy on Iran's nuclear program – learn to live with it. Nota bene: LTG Odom was director of the National Security Agency (NSA) under Pres. Reagan. He was characterized as a “hardliner” for his opposition to diplomacy with the Soviets. He also opposed US military action against Iraq in 2003. LTG Odom died this past Friday (natural causes), two days after the Op-Ed ran - his WP obituary. Excerpts from A Sensible Path on Iran : “Current U.S. policy toward the regime in Tehran will almost certainly result in an Iran with nuclear weapons. The seemingly clever combination of the use of ‘sticks’ and ‘carrots,’ including the frequent official hints of an American military option ‘remaining on the table,’ simply intensifies Iran’s desire to have its own nuclear arsenal. Alas, such a heavy-handed ‘sticks’ and ‘carrots’ policy may work with donkeys but not with serious countries. The United States would have a better chance of success if the White House abandoned its threats of military action and its calls for regime change. “Consider countries that could have quickly become nuclear weapon states had they been treated similarly. Brazil, Argentina and South Africa had nuclear weapons programs but gave them up, each for different reasons. Had the United States threatened to change their regimes if they would not, probably none would have complied. But when ‘sticks’ and ‘carrots’ failed to prevent India and Pakistan from acquiring nuclear weapons, the United States rapidly accommodated both, preferring good relations with them to hostile ones. What does this suggest to leaders in Iran? “To look at the issue another way, imagine if China, a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and a country that has deliberately not engaged in a nuclear arms race with Russia or the United States, threatened to change the American regime if it did not begin a steady destruction of its nuclear arsenal. The threat would have an arguable legal basis, because all treaty signatories promised long ago to reduce their arsenals, eventually to zero. The American reaction, of course, would be explosive public opposition to such a demand. U.S. leaders might even mimic the fantasy rhetoric of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad regarding the use of nuclear weapons.” “A successful approach [i.e., US foreign policy] to Iran has to accommodate its security interests and ours. Neither a U.S. air attack on Iranian nuclear facilities nor a less effective Israeli one could do more than merely set back Iran's nuclear program. In either case, the United States would be held accountable and would have to pay the price resulting from likely Iranian reactions. These would almost certainly involve destabilizing the Middle East, as well as Afghanistan, and serious efforts to disrupt the flow of oil, at the very least generating a massive increase in its already high cost. The turmoil in the Middle East resulting from a preemptive attack on Iran would hurt America and eventually Israel, too. “Given Iran’s stated goals -- a nuclear power capability but not nuclear weapons, as well as an alleged desire to discuss broader U.S.-Iranian security issues -- a realistic policy would exploit this opening to see what it might yield. The United States could indicate that it is prepared to negotiate, either on the basis of no preconditions by either side (though retaining the right to terminate the negotiations if Iran remains unyielding but begins to enrich its uranium beyond levels allowed by the Non-Proliferation Treaty); or to negotiate on the basis of an Iranian willingness to suspend enrichment in return for simultaneous U.S. suspension of major economic and financial sanctions. “Such a broader and more flexible approach would increase the prospects of an international arrangement being devised to accommodate Iran's desire for an autonomous nuclear energy program while minimizing the possibility that it could be rapidly transformed into a nuclear weapons program. “Moreover, there is no credible reason to assume that the traditional policy of strategic deterrence, which worked so well in U.S. relations with the Soviet Union and with China and which has helped to stabilize India-Pakistan hostility, would not work in the case of Iran. The widely propagated notion of a suicidal Iran detonating its very first nuclear weapon against Israel is more the product of paranoia or demagogy than of serious strategic calculus. It cannot be the basis for U.S. policy, and it should not be for Israel's, either.” The easy criticism of Brzezinski and Odom’s is that the type of “Grand Bargain” which they are proposing is difficult (although not impossible) to verify. There is credible evidence Iran has even supplied the insurgents with weapons. As the geo-political situation exists now (read: strong US influence) Iran does not want “stability” that leaves “independent” (or US proxy) states east and west. The Iranian regime (government) wants regimes (government) favorable to their advancing their regional (if not global aspirations) hegemony. Just as the US shouldn’t pursue military action just ‘because we can;’ the US should not pursue diplomacy just ‘because we can’ or ‘because we haven’t done it before.’ All of those approaches represent an intellectually and strategically lazy approach to national security, im-ever-ho. US foreign policy toward Iran needs to identify where and how leverages by the US (& by extension western world) can influence Iran’s government. US foreign policy toward Iran is a complex (heck, almost convoluted) task in a very complex situation (geographically) that isn’t going to be solved by saber-rattling, which I think is the point of the Op-Ed. Almost concurrently, Iran’s Parliament elected the Ali Larijani as the new speaker of parliament last week. Larijani “ is seen as a key conservative rival to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and may use his post to launch a presidential campaign for next year.” Speaker is a one-year term. Larijani resigned in October 2007 as Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator, after disagreements with Ahmadinejad. Larijani is a conservative not a reformer. In contrast to Ahmadinejad’s ideological fundamentalism, Larijani is more of a pragmatic realist. Larijani is also close to Ayatollah Khamenei. Given Iran’s flailing economy – Ahmadinejad is losing favor because he’s failing to appreciate that even in Iran, all politics is local. There are opportunities. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Link to dozens of sources noting Mandarin Chinese as most commonly spoken language, ~1B speakers worldwide, including ~850 million native speakers. Whether Spanish or English is the 2nd or 3rd most commonly spoken language (both behind Mandarin) seems to be some discussion depending on how one does the counting (native versus secondary & tertiary speakers). English is definitely the lingua franca (ironically) -- most influential language -- for commerce and technology. Altho' with the development of Chinese language web (& to lesser impact Russian language web), it will be interesting to note how that changes. If I was 15, I'd want to learn Mandarin as a 2nd language. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Concur, w/r/t Pres GHW Bush (Sr) realism. Trying to argue Bush Sr as a foreign policy idealist or neoconservative would be an interesting straw man argument to make but not one which I would want to undertake. My query was w/r/t Pres GW Bush's (Jr) as a foreign policy idealist. Neoconservatism foreign policy is characterized by idealist expectations of spread of democracy, motivating belief the inherant value of democracy as normatively best, and expectations that people around the world will accept, prosper, and build democratic institutions and processes. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

The 3 most interesting commentaries, imo, that I’ve read/heard w/r/t Scott McClennan’s book have not come from him but from others: (1) “McClellan and the perils of the tell-all” from The Politico by John Feehery, who “worked for the House Republican leadership from 1989 to 2005.” “I don’t know Scott McClellan that well. I interacted with him every once in a while when he was President Bush’s press secretary and I held the same role for House Speaker Dennis Hastert. We had a cordial but distant relationship. “McClellan was one of the Texas guys, who didn’t care much for Washington folks like me. They had it all figured out and didn’t need any help on communications strategy from congressional types. When we held conference calls with the White House press team, they seemed to bristle any time we raised questions about Bush administration strategy. “By the time McClellan took over for Ari Fleischer, there really wasn’t much of a percentage in being candid with the White House press team. What did we know? We were only the Congress. “The leader of the Texas communicators was Karen Hughes, and she developed the rigid style that would come to typify this White House communications shop until former press secretary Tony Snow, current press secretary Dana Perino, Communications Director Kevin Sullivan and counselor to the president Ed Gillespie would ride to the rescue in the latter days of this administration. “The Hughes approach to media enforcement was simple: The media were all left-wing scum. Congress is irrelevant. Any leakers would be shot on sight. Discipline, discipline, discipline. “In those first years of the Bush White House, the talking points were pretty much all the same: George W. Bush is great. Congress is irrelevant. The Democrats are evil. “It is hard to know what Scott McClellan’s motives are for writing this book. He is not the only one to jump ship and turn on his former client. Doug Feith, Jerry Bremer and a host of others have tried to shift the blame to others for failed policies in the Bush administration. One thing is certain: The Hughes model for message discipline has completely fallen apart.” (2) Friday’s PBS Newshour, commentary by NY Times columnist David Brooks:“I read most of the book. And I found it -- no original stories, no interesting observations, cliche-ridden, and bland. “And to me, it exemplified what the problem with the Bush administration was. There was spin, and God knows there was a lot of spin. But the real problem was there was no debate. “There were 20 percent of the people in that administration, in this administration, or especially in the first term, who were smart and were capable of having a debate. There were a lot of intellectual mediocrities who would never have a debate, did not have the intellectual chops to have a debate. And McClellan, frankly, is one of them. “And the blandness and clichedness of this sort of book exemplifies a lot of the clones that were walking around the White House, who never could challenge the president, never could challenge anybody …. “And so what you had was a culture without debate. And to me, nothing was ever tested. And you had a few people making the decisions, nobody asking questions. And McClellan -- he's not expected to. He was the press secretary. He's not expected to. But essentially, you had no culture of testing decisionmaking, and that was the problem. And then the book exemplifies the mediocrity that pervaded parts of the administration.” RAY SUAREZ[PBS Newshour interim host]: “That lack of culture of debate, was it only really a problem because of the times we were living in, the attack against the United States and the preparations for war and such? DAVID BROOKS: “9/11 shut down the debate even more. There was also an element of worship of the president of people like McClellan. They worshipped him, and they couldn't challenge him. “I told this story recently. I went in for an interview with the president with a couple columnists. This was a couple of years ago. One of my colleagues was a guy named Max Boot [very conservative/neoconservative], is a guy named Max, a military columnist then at the L.A. Times [at the time]. “He challenged Bush hard on troop levels, on the conduct of the war, and they had a very tense exchange for 10 or 15 minutes, really going back at each other, Bush getting red and really going back. But Bush kept saying in the middle of it -- it was a little scary, because Bush was really hot -- but he kept saying, ‘I want you to know I'm enjoying this. I'm enjoying this.’ “And it was like a guy who had never had a chance to actually have an argument. And he didn't mind it, but nobody ever came in. I think very few people came in and gave him that argument. “I think he would have welcomed it. I certainly know the presidency would have benefited from that kind of argument.” (3) “Why you shouldn't buy Scott McClellan's book” Rob Stutzman’s [By line: “Rob Stutzman has served has a press spokesman for elected officials including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. He is currently a partner in Navigators, LLC, a public affairs consulting firm”] column from Saturday’s San Francisco Chronicle: “…there's been virtually no discussion of the impact McClellan’s betrayal of his former boss upon the presidency itself. All Americans should be concerned. “I've never served a president, but I've served high-level elected officials in a similar capacity to McClellan's and understand the nature of his job and the nature of the inner workings of executive offices of government. To serve in such a capacity is a privilege, and though not commonly thought highly of by the public, ‘political hacks’ such as myself still view the opportunity to serve a president, governor or other elected official as a performance of public service. “McClellan’s willingness to profit from his White House days by dishing on Bush while he is still in office is an act of self-indulgence that not only harms a sitting president but complicates the ability of future presidents to conduct their duties. And for that, McClellan should be ashamed.” “The presidency may be the world’s loneliest job. To be effective, a president must be able to rely upon the confidence to interact with his or her senior staff in candid and intimate ways. To effectively deliberate requires an environment of safety, of which the greatest element is the confidence of privacy and candor. “McClellan has stuck a blow to that confidence.” Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with what Scott McClennan asserts -- I probably most agree with David Brooks' summary -- he was in a privaleged position, he made choices after leaving that position, his choices are going to have effects for future administrations regardless of political party. One thing that I hope does not come out of this is requisite life-time publication review for all former federal appointees or employees (including uniformed service), as is currently the case with former intelligence community members. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

PublicAffairs is the Publisher. Public Affairs is part of the Perseus Books Group, which was established in 1990s “when millionaire investor Frank Pearl set out to establish an independent publisher that would focus on the publication of serious nonfiction.” Public Affairs is also publishing a biography of former SecDef Donald Rumsfeld, among other books. Some of the stories going around the net (e.g., Newsbusters and MRC) have undertones of book-banning, arguments for quotas in free market, and implicit counter-capitalism and counter-free marker arguments (ironic when juxtaposed to the “powered by capitalism” t-shirt advertisement adjacent on the Newsbusters site). Looking at the list of author’s published by Public Affairs, they’re publishing those that are going to make money (e.g., McClennan, Andy Rooney, Putin, Yeltsin, George Soros, comedian Richard Lewis) and mostly serious nonfiction that will have a smaller audience (e.g., military theorist Martin van Crevald, former SecDef Robert McNamara, Conrad Black, libertarian economist Brian Doherty, ... & a bunch of authors I don’t recognize). Sounds like a balanced capitalist model! VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Are you excluding Pres GW Bush? It's a different flavor of idealism than Pres Carter. Neo-conservative foreign policy is fundamentally based on idealist expectations of spread of democracy, the inherant value of democracy as normatively best, and that people around the world will accept, prosper, and build democratic institutions and processes. The realist foreign policy -- realpolitik -- of Presidents GHW Bush and Reagan, even tho' the latter was a master of optimistic, idealist rhetoric, in a very good way, is markedly different than neoconservatism. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Mike – the problem is that what you keep putting forth as evidence isn’t really showing what you or the MRC is asserting. Yes, MRC is making those editorial claims. When one – just anyone, don’t need a PhD or fancy credentials – looks at the data, it’s not supporting the MRC’s claims. Showed here why/how the Pew report did not support MRC conclusions. What the Pew report showed was that the majority of reporters are in the ‘middle’ politically. Read the Groseclose and Milyo “UCLA” paper last night. And I did find a few surprising conclusions. By the method the authors use, they find that “[p]erhaps the biggest surprise of Table 1 is the average score for the ACLU … is 34.99, which is to the right [emphasis in the original] of the average member of Congress,” (p. 8). Who would have anticipated that? The ACLU is a conservative think tank? Similarly surprising, Groseclose and Milyo's method finds that the AARP is a far left advocacy group, even more liberal than Amnesty International by almost 10 points (Table 1, p. 19). Looking at one subset of data on ADA score of “Congresscritters,”

Looking at the numbers -- not the editorial comments on the "Media Research Center" site -- I don't reach the same conclusion. Yes, MRC's editorial comments do assert those conclusions. Do give MRC credit that numbers are included in the text:"Most of the journalists surveyed (57.5%) chose numbers that placed themselves in the middle of the spectrum, with 22.1 percent ranking themselves as more liberal, and 17.9 percent saying they were more conservative, and 2.5 percent not responding."MRC acknowledges that the majority, not just a plurality, are in the "middle." 22.1% liberal 17.9% conservative (No mention of +/-error.) Looking at the multiple studies reported onthe MRC webpage, that distribution is basically reflected throughout the studies the MRC cites, which is what one would hope to see --> reproducibility. The 2004 Pew report found that 54% of national and 61% of local-level journalists described themselves as moderate. (Again similar to the numbers MRC cites.) “About a third of national journalists (34%) and somewhat fewer local journalists (23%) describe themselves as liberals; that compares with 19% of the public in a May survey conducted by the Pew Research Center.” Local journalist self-identified political leanings are comparative (possibly w/in error) and national journalists are 15% points higher than the public at large. That's bias? But still well less than half. That’s just simple correlation … nothing w/r/t causality. ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~ If that is true -- not sure the data supports the "overwhelming" part -- that is a completely reasonable question: Do personal voting patterns affect professional behavior? That's about causality. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Really? I was under the impression that after graduating from the USNA and serving in Vietnam as a Navy officer, he was on the DIA career officer path (iirc, Defense Attache) before becoming a professional staff member working in Sen Bob Dole's office (ironic tangential connection noted to 'Politico' post cited in this thread). Wasn't Armitage appointed ASD(International Security Affairs) under SecDef Casper Weinberger (under Pres. Reagan)? And he didn't enter State until he was appointed DepSecState? Technically as a political appointee (Class A or C) or as a non-appointee SES, one is not part of the career federal service ... at least not a DoD; it would surprise me if the case was different at State. As to why he was never pursued by Mr. Fitzgerald, my speculation -- & that's all it is -- is that it was because he 'fess'd up' and took responsibility for his actions: "'Oh I feel terrible. Every day, I think I let down the president. I let down the Secretary of State. I let down my department, my family and I also let down Mr. and Mrs. Wilson.' "When asked if he feels he owes the Wilsons an apology, he says, 'I think I've just done it.' "'I didn't know the woman's name was Plame. I didn't know she was an operative.' He says he was reading Novak's newspaper column again, on Oct. 1, 2003, and 'he said he was told by a non-partisan gun slinger.' "'I almost immediately called Secretary Powell and said, "I'm sure that was me,"' Armitage says. "Armitage immediately met with FBI agents investigating the leak. 'I told them that I was the inadvertent leak,' Armitage says. He didn't get a lawyer, however. "'First of all, I felt so terrible about what I'd done that I felt I deserved whatever was coming to me. And secondarily, I didn't need an attorney to tell me to tell the truth. I as already doing that,' Armitage explains. 'I was not intentionally outing anybody. As I say, I have tremendous respect for Ambassador. Wilson's African credentials. I didn't know anything about his wife and made an offhand comment. I didn't try to out anybody.' "Armitage says he didn't come forward because 'the special counsel, once he was appointed, asked me not to discuss this and I honored his request.' "'I thought every day about how I'd screwed up,' he adds." He fess'd up, i.e., personal responsibility; he explained this situation and cooperated with Mr. Fitzgerald - I accept that he is honestly relating what he did -- a non-malicious screw up, we've all done it ... he took responsibility for his actions; he wasn't in denial; and he wasn't switching blame or making the issue about anyone else. He also has not pursued another civil service position post-DepSecState; it was much assumed inside the Beltway that he would get a very high level advisory position at DIA or CIA post-State. He hasn't. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

As I read it, it sounds like you’re asking what is fundamentally a normative question – how society should be. What hasn’t been mentioned explicitly who has power and privilege under that normative system. (Although that is what I read as the underlying basis of [kelpdiver]’s comments.) So we have some groups that used to have much more dominance. That started changing after WWII in the US and western Europe. Some see/construct/assert that change as evidence of decline in ‘moral code,’ because their power/privilege declined. The normative structure changed. For the better, imo. From my perspective, acknowledging a late 20th Century/early 21st Century American background, the bigger issues at the core of some of the criticisms and problems that you’ve mentioned over the last month are anti-intellectualism and promotion of being a jerk. The two are connected. There’s always been smart satire, e.g., Shakespeare’s comedies. One can speculate on the origin of the pervasive promotion of being a 'jerk' as cool. The other is a lack of consequences for bad behavior (links to the above on one level). [Edit to add: & a lack of rewards for 'normativly' good behavior. Just getting by is the easiest path. Normatively 'good' behavior, such as being a whistleblower, more often has negative consequences.] In the late 1980s there was a quip I heard that stuck with me as an epitomization of some of the kind of things you've cited: “The difference between right and wrong is wrong is getting caught.” That comment arose w/r/t the Wall Street scandals of the 1980s, the Keating Five scandal, Iran-Contra, and the Savings & Loan bail-out. Imo, greed/selfishness is just as much physiologically ‘hard-wired’ into the human brain as empathy and altruism are. (And I can provide evidence to support those assertions.) Waste, fraud, & abuse weren't invented by the late 20th Century (nor by hippies or ‘liberals’ ). So what’s changed? Maybe we just hear about it more often? Better instrumentation and faster dissemination of information? How do you measure and value doing the ‘right thing’ (a normative) when what is rewarded at the end of the day is the bottom line or fulfillment of a metric? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I honestly hope not. At least one north Georgia law enforcement officer has been quoted as being concerned: From a 20 May article in a Roswell, Georgia weekly newspaper: "White Fright: White Supremacy Groups Threatened by Obama Candidacy" Perhaps the media has not focused on them. But the anti-government, white supremacy groups are still in existence. For example, there's the latest guy to be arrested a couple weeks ago when he thought he was selling materials to make an improvised chemical weapon to right-wing, anti-govertment, white supremacy group. When I give talks on improvised chemical terrorism, always mention William Krar usually with some quip like "if his first name was Mohammed or Akbar, AG John Ashcroft would have been giving a press conference himself the next morning." VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Is your response serious or facetious? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Agree! Really like!

Define, please. A couple definitions from the Cato Institute: "direct and indirect subsidies to businesses and private- sector corporate entities" and "Corporate welfare should be carefully defined as any government spending program that provides unique benefits or advantages to specific companies or industries. That includes programs that provide direct grants to businesses, programs that provide research and other services for industries, and programs that provide subsidized loans or insurance to companies." By calculations of one of Cato's analysts, it was $92B in 2007."Supporters of corporate welfare programs often justify them as remedying some sort of market failure. Often the market failures on which the programs are predicated are either overblown or don't exist. Yet the federal government continues to subsidize some of the biggest companies in America. Boeing, Xerox, IBM, Motorola, Dow Chemical, General Electric, and others have received millions in taxpayer-funded benefits through programs like the Advanced Technology Program and the Export-Import Bank. In addition, the federal crop subsidy programs continue to fund the wealthiest farmers." Cato's proposed solution is a "corporate welfare reform commission (CWRC)" similar to BRAC ... and like BRAC it would have to be in order to minimization reactionary blowback from cuts that impact local sectors. I don't agree nor do I disagree completely with the Cato Institute's analysis. Some of their choices are short-sighted, imo, e.g., criticism/support of elimination of NIST ATP, Defense R&D, and Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Others like their farm bill & oil company subsidies/tax breaks criticisms and objections to paying for corporate marketing are accurate, imo. There's also the "Hidden Welfare State" that most notably includes the near-third rail of tax breaks for mortgage interest. Other examples include the Earned Income Tax Credit (which grew faster than any other major U.S. social program between 1980 and 2000) and reduction of corporate tax liabilities, such as for employee health insurance. It's "welfare" through the tax code rather than direct appropriations. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Its much deeper than that. Understanding why we are here isnt the pursuit of my spiritual path, its getting the most out of life that is. I also find it a bit funny that one is not considered a free thinker if hes found to be a spiritual man, it is actually quite the opposite. I read his words a little differently: that free thinkers may not find their need(s) for spirituality satisified through organized, dogmatic, traditional religious institutions and structures. I would pose a few counter-examples to [tbrown]'s generalization, although they may be exceptions rather than the rule: Dorothy Day -- one of her most famous quotes I suspect you may like: "The greatest challenge of the day is: how to bring about a revolution of the heart, a revolution which has to start with each one of us?" -- & Peter Maurin (founders of Catholic Worker Movement) and Archbishop Oscar Romero. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

A couple weeks ago Nortel made available a report they commisioned by the independent analysis/marketing firm, IDC, titled “The Hyperconnected: Here They Come!: A Global Look at the Exploding ‘Culture of Connectivity’ and Its Impact on the Enterprise,” which explores trends in information sharing and connectivity in people’s daily lives. (PM w/an email if you would like a copy of the 1.5 MB report w/out giving Nortel your real or spam-proof info.) IDC surveyed 2,400 working adults from various industries across 17 countries (North and South America, Europe, Asia, Australia, Middle East and Russia but none from Africa) and found that 16% are already “HyperConnected.” Using cluster analysis, IDC identified 4 catgories or profiles of technology users: 16 % were found to be the HyperConnected, i.e., “a person who uses a minimum of 7 devices for work and 9 connectivity applications. The lines between business and personal use is blurred.” The Increasingly Connected use 4 devices and 6 applications, “they tend to use applications such as blogs and wikis but are less apt to be social networking.” The Passive Online “use fewer devices but are experimenting with application such as IM.” The Barebones Users “use email, desktop access to the Web.” Some characteristics of the “Hyperconnected”: -- The boundary between work and personal connectivity for the hyperconnected is almost nonexistent. Two-thirds use text or instant messaging for both work and personal use. More than a third use social networking for both. -- The country with the highest percentage of hyperconnected respondents was China. -- They can be any age, although 60% are under 35, only 7% over 55 IDC’s conclusion: “It won’t be possible to ignore this new level of connectivity. Businesses can either embrace it and manage it carefully or, stand-by as it enters their enterprise, in a confusion of disconnected deployments that squander the productivity and competitive advantage Hyperconnectivity could otherwise bring.” Some of my observations: There’s an underlying implicit assumption in the study that more connected is better. And some of the depicted benefits are powerful. In consideration of the funder and distributor, this is not unreasonable. Doesn’t necessarily make the data suspect; it may (or may not) reflect the conclusions … notably those that are used as part of marketing or advertising. All information exchanged via connectivity is not created equal. The electrons it takes for 4 million people a day to say “I just landed and is driving on the runway” [even when the plane is on the tarmac] and 15 million teenagers talking about the latest viral video on youtube is not equivalent to the contents of the Library of Congress. The study treats all information as equal. It does not address the relative increase in noise to signal. The blending of personal/private and work/public: Hyperconnected individuals do it more. Is there value in not always being in contact with work? The study portrays the shift not in the impact on employees lives but on the (sometimes) legitimate concern of employees using work resources for personal/private activities (like whatever % of us are reading this while at ‘work’ ). Most intellectually provocative notion (imo) mentioned very briefly was the potential consequences (generally portrayed as negative) of a loss of connectivity among the most connected. More than just the unproductiveness many/most of us are familiar with when the ‘server’/system goes down (whether at work … or while trying to do business, e.g., at an airport). But as connectivity becomes a more implicit part of society what are the ramifications, particularly on social-support connections if all connectivity is loss or on critical exchanges (e.g., if one no longer has a check book and can’t e-transfer $ to pay for electricity in winter in South Dakota). In downtown Atlanta (technically midtown for pedantic locals), at least one of the condos features a “hyperconnected” system in which when the owner-occupant drive into the parking garage, your condo ‘knows’ you’re arriving and will adjust lights, music, turn off security, whatever. As you walk through the lobby and are in the elevator, the building switches the art of the wall and the music to reflect your preferences. Now the technophile in me thought this was pretty cool. Otoh, it’s a little creepy too … almost Ray Bradbury “The Veldt”-ish. When you push to that connectivity level, what are the consequences when connectivity fails? (Albeit, that kind of question is either at the far margins or outside what would reasonably be expected for Nortel to pursue.) Your thoughts? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying