Interesting forum on buying a car right nowthread

I'm interested in buying a car, mostly because my car is not interested in staying alive. A reputable dealer priced repairs at around $5k for it to make inspection, which doesn't include an additional $2-2.5k that was recommended, but put on hold, when I went in last time. It sounds ridiculous, but I really do trust this shop.

For those of you who don't know or remember, I drive a 1993 Toyota Camry, V6 LE. So it's completely ridiculous that I will put in $7.5k into this car, especially since I put in $1.7k a few months ago... >:(

Anyway, Fatwallet, a site I genuinely love, has a great thread on buying a car in the present environment. I may just move to a place that will let me use the Metro, but I'll keep this in mind.

Sometimes, I hate the media

Ok, I admit, I'm a media junkie. Every morning, I try to read Bloomberg, the NYTimes, the Financial Times, and the Washington Post. (The Wall Street Journal is still subscription based, so I'm hosed on that one.) I subscribe to breaking news from the FT, CNN, and MSNBC. I will occasionally read MSNBC articles, Seekingalpha, Minyanville, and a few financial blogs. I'm also reading blogs at the Council on Foreign Relations, and even watch C-Span whenever i want to see members of Congress go medieval on the whipping boy of the moment. (Maxine Waters v. Hank Paulson and Richard Shelby v. Mullaly/Wagoner/Nardelli were particularly brutal.)

And I realize that the media needs to sell - "If it bleeds, it leads" makes a whole lot more sense when I learned more about how journalism works in a flat-ish world. (Thanks go to Bruce Lewenstein of Cornell's Communications department for an excellent class - COMM 566: Science Communication.)

But goddamnit, it's not $7 trillion dollars!

Let me explain. Bloomberg ran a story on Nov 24* that the total federal outlays for the purpose of rescuing/repairing/bailing out the American financial system could total $7.76 trillion dollars. (By comparison, US GDP is about $13 trillion (2006), the US 2009 Federal Budget (pdf) is $3.1 trillion, total national debt is $10.64 trillion, and debt held by the public is $6.4 trillion.) Alternatively, it's equal to 155 trillion kg of nickels (1 nickel = 5.00 g), roughly equal to 40 times the total mass of all oil produced in 2001. (I love wikipedia... for some things.)



* Sorry, original article appears to be gone - copy comes from the oh-so-appropriately-titled Conspiracy Cafe.

Ever since Bloomberg ran the story about the $7.6 trillion, I've seen that figure splashed everywhere. And while expansionary fiscal policy (read: printing money) may be in the cards, there is nowhere near $7 trillion in expected liability to the American taxpayer.

If you read their analysis carefully, you see that the total reflects all of the funds deployed by the Fed and the Treasury, the vast majority lent against collateral. Now, we can speculate on what the collateral is worth, but it is most likely not zero. Forget mark-to-market; part of the reason some of these assets have been pledged is because the markets for them are illiquid at prices near to those listed on the banks' books. (You can get price discovery, as Merrill did when it unloaded some $30 bn in MBSs at 22 cents on the dollar. This, however, would probably lead to most large banks not being in compliance with Federal regulations on reequired Tier 1/Tier 2 capital ratios, and, more importantly, a complete collapse in faith in the banks.)

This bugs me because the political pressure to avoid further government action will increase. People are already pissed about the unfortunately-termed bailout, as well as Paulson's necessary but politically inept handling of the TARP program.

It makes for a great headline, but it's a huge distortion of the facts. And the more pressure is put to avoid ANY government countercyclical fiscal policy, the more likely we will have a long, protracted recession with ever-more job losses.

By all means, do your job and throw light on the stinking carcass of our financial system. Transparency will help. But don't you dare contribute to an implosion of confidence by writing misleading headline - you're putting jobs and livelihoods at risk.

Mumbai

It should be no surprise that we stand with the people of India and Pakistan during this crisis. Good and decent individuals everywhere were horrified. And for all our faults, I believe the people of the United States still believe, and will yet sacrifice, for the right of individuals everywhere to be free and safe from tyranny. To our friends in the most distant parts of the globe, we offer our prayers, and our support.

But we must not substitute passion for policy, and bold words for substance. Both are needed. Though diminished by policy blunders foreign and domestic, the word, confidence, support, and - it is true - military might of the United States still speaks strongly, if not always convincingly, across the wide world. Yet it is precisely now, when the need for multilateral coordination of policy is greatest, that we find ourselves most vulnerable and least able to play a strong role.

This is not to say that the United States should or will retreat into isolation. The temptation is great, but the dangers are greater. We hope that the current necessary process of deleveraging, recapitalization, and rectifying trade imbalances will provide a more stable and transparent international financial system. In the meantime, balancing moral hazard, limited resources, and systemic risk, and mindful of the politically possible, we labor to manage expectations of many, many stakeholders. The time has not come for the United States to cede its leadership in many of the international institutions that it created and dominated in the post-WWII era; but it is long overdue for us to begin transmuting these institutions into something that can work in a multipolar world, a world where we welcome a stronger, richer, and ever more democratic India. Our experience teaches us the value of a democratic nation endowed with the talents of its people, its rich cultural heritage, its natural beauty, and, most importantly, good relations with stable neighbors. We wish the same destiny for India, distinct and improved by attention to history and its own distinctive heritage and values.

We stand with the people who grieve in Mumbai and every corner of the world. But we also pray, fervently, that the desire to do good does not lead us to settle for doing something. The goal may well be deteriorating relations between India and Pakistan. The emotional backlash and subsequent actions taken by all parties may result in just that.

Those in positions of power need no lecture from people like me; as is usually the case, those who know better need no reminder, and those who don't need no responsibility. For the rest of us, we must have the courage to read, think, and analyze, as we respect and appreciate the honesty and right for high emotions from all concerned. We should never deny the validity of emotions - but we must always, always question the judgment that comes from acting solely on them.

shantih
shantih
shantih

Roland Fryer on the Colbert Report

Roland Fryer, economist at Harvard, talks with Stephen Colbert about cash incentives for good grades in schools.

It's a hilarious interview - unlike a lot of people who come on this show, he is absolutely ready for Stephen's antics. He's too cool for school (Harvard, anyway). I'm starting to believe the observation that Harvard never tenures its assistant professors, thereby preserving its competitive advantage in stodginess and ossification. (Not really - I'm just mad they rejected me twice.)

More seriously, the question of incentives for good grades touches upon the idea of incentives in general in areas where the primary social structure is based on norms and not free-market capitalism (at least on the face of it). It's an interesting idea, and I hope it works. I'll be writing more about this later - in particular, when you attempt to create a bonus incentive scheme, there is a presupposition that the principal-agent relation is limited by motivation on the part of the agent. Is this an issue of motivation, or of capacity? To what extent can the added motivator effectively change capacity over any reasonable time period? What are the lessons to be learned from areas in the service sector where financial incentives are applied in situations where actors may be governed by social-welfare utility functions? And finally, what are the potential implications for the parent-child relationship - if external actors are seen as providers of material well-being, will this further erode the family, or simply offer a superior alternative and success model for children in families with failed parents?

A Few Good Bailouts

http://www.inpaulsonwetrust.com/2008/11/cummings-asks-is-kashkari-a-chump/

Wow. Comment 12 is possibly one of the funniest things to come out of the collapse of the financial system. It might just be worth the crisis.

Reproduced from inpaulsonwetrust.com:

A FEW GOOD BAILOUTS

Mr. Kashkari: You want answers?

Congressman Cummings: I think I’m entitled to them.

Mr.Kashkari: You want answers?

Congressman Cummings: I want the truth!

Mr. Kashkari: You can’t handle the truth! Son, we live in a world of bad business decisions. And the executives making those bad decisions have to be paid. Who’s gonna do it? You? You, Rep. Kucinich? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom.

You weep for tax payers and you curse the Treasury. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that the taxpayer’s loss, while tragic, probably saved jobs. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves cushy jobs…You don’t want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want me in that Treasury. You need me in that Treasury.
We use words like credit,securities;capital. we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use ‘em as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very debt I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I’d rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a checkbook and start signing. Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think you’re entitled to!

Congressman Cummings: Are you a chump?

Mr. Kashkari: (quietly) I did the job congress ask me to do.

Congressman Cummings: Are you a chump?

Mr. Kashkari: You’re damn right I am!!

California Proposition 8, Christianity, Science, and America

Today I had a long conversation with a friend from Harvey Mudd. He, like many of my friends, is excited that Barack Obama won the presidency on Tuesday. And he, like many, is dismayed that the voters in California decided to pass Proposition 8: “Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry.” In our conversation, I realized that the issues surrounding whether or not same-sex couples should have the right to marry is tied to an aspect of religious belief in a way that reminds me of another area of social conflict – the fight over evolution. I thought it was time for me to share my experiences and thoughts on this other battle, and then see if I can apply the lessons inferred to this present conflict.

On April 15, former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee spoke at Cornell. I was struck by how likable he was. He was charismatic and well-spoken. I thought he made a wonderful and correct point talking about how his experiences as a minister were distinctly valuable, and very different from his fellow candidates. As a pastor, he said, he saw every form of human frailty, and spoke with men and women from all walks of life. I have been, and remain, in favor of the separation of church and state. But considering that the legal profession (as I imperfectly understand it) is focused on specificity, precedent, and argument, I believe there is something to be learned from the shepherd-leader who knows how to listen, to make those around him or her feel heard and cared for, even if there is no final resolution of the difference of opinion.

I found one brief portion of the talk particularly enlightening. Throughout his talk, he poked fun at himself and the controversy he generated—Eisenhower, Sherman, and other impressive American leaders have been very effective at the art of disarming self-deprecating humor while maintaining decisive leadership and command. When the topic of evolution came up, he relieved the potential tension with a joke. He pointed out that “he didn’t know…. He wasn’t there.”

It struck me a bit odd, and it took a few days for me to realize why that brief, rather mild joke was so important. It goes to a point Phil Muirhead at Cornell Astronomy once pointed out – that there was a world of difference between scientists, whose work depends upon trusting the results of other experiments that they did not personally conduct, and individuals for whom the threshold of truth is personal experience.

This is odd because Governor Huckabee does trust the custodianship of another set of events for which he has no personal experience—namely, the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

I point this out not to highlight inconsistency, but to underline a key point that is missed during the talking past one another that secular scientists and religious community members seem to have, or conservative Christians and homosexuals, or Democrats and Republicans.

There is a deep disagreement on the sources of truth, legitimacy, and authority between the great cultural divides in our society.

A good scientist will study and question the custodianship and legitimacy of the set of experimental and theoretical work that has led to modern evolutionary biology. And a good Christian will examine the ecclesiastical and temporal histories that shaped, and were shaped by, Christianity. And ideally, both are willing to study outside their areas of competence, and discover and construct a more complicated, subtle and meaningful identity for themselves than existed before.

Yet it is the nature of power to react against the threat posed by other sources of truth and legitimacy. Though human beings are complex, our limited resources often cause us to focus on specific salient aspects of ourselves. At any given moment I may be a man, an Asian, a scientist, a job seeker, a Christian, a Democrat, a writer, a son, an American citizen, and a trader. But rarely do I retain awareness of all those aspects. Even if I did, I might underweight or overweight the contributions of any one in my actions and reactions to a given situation.

Wisdom comes from knowledge and experience. Both depend upon two factors:
(1) our ability to analyze and arrive at greater truth
(2) our ability to recognize the limitations of both the processes we use and the scope of our conclusions.

By (2), I mean that we need to depend upon multiple processes for understanding our world and the truth, in both a physical and a moral sense.
As an astronomer, I used multiple wavelengths of light to infer greater knowledge about stars and planets. Were I to limit myself to the one band where I have personal experience (visible), I would be unable to detect brown dwarfs around nearby stars, unable to detect ice on the Moon, unable to track star formation in distant galaxies. Indeed, the different academic disciplines provide different lenses and different toolboxes by which we can analyze and process texts, external events and personal experiences. (This is why I support a broad liberal arts background combined with a rigorous scientific education.)
And as a Christian, I have studied not only the Bible and prominent Christian theologians, but also other major religions, the complicated relationship between temporal and ecclesiastical authority in the Roman Empire and Medieval Europe, and how the evolution and decline of mainline American denominational churches has affected poverty work.

And I have tremendously enjoyed the opportunities afforded by my limited travels, my education, and inscrutable fate to have wonderful conversations with men and women of all walks of life, of varying degrees of power, wealth, charisma, culture, faith, and political persuasion.

Our success—in all senses of the word—in this life is facilitated by a willingness to learn as much as possible from any and all sources, combined—critically so—with a temperament, character, and system of values that change less in response to direct pressure from others than our own desire to change in response to new information and insight.

I don’t know precisely why Proposition 8 appears to be on track to pass. Perhaps those who voted for it are homophobic. Perhaps they value their heterosexual marriages. Perhaps they were concerned about how it would affect what their children were introduced to in schools. Perhaps they believed that their pastors would be forced to perform marriages between gays and lesbians or face legal sanction. Perhaps their faith proscribes homosexuality. Perhaps they were concerned about the already substantial federal deficit, and the implications should homosexual couples receive the same financial benefits that heterosexual spouses enjoy. Perhaps it was a reaction to the focus on sex that often is found in discussion and expressions of homosexual identity.

At the core of the religious opposition to same-sex marriage is a presumption that Christian truth includes a component that explicitly regards same-sex marriage, or same-sex relationships as sinful and proscribed, and that this truth passes through trustworthy custodians cognizant both of the complexities of modern life, the variegated and complicated identity of being gay, and the application of Christian principles and lessons to both of these.

This belief and its implications are at loggerheads with other aspects of our collective identities to restrict or remove rights through means of constitutional amendment.

I do not know for certain whether the state of California, or any other state, has enacted constitutional amendments that restrict or remove the rights of any individual or group. As far as I know, the United States Constitution has only one: the 18th amendment on the prohibition of alcohol, which was enacted in 1917 and repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933. (I do not count the 22nd Amendment, which limits a president to two elected terms.) All other amendments seek to extend or confirm the rights of its citizens, or to clarify procedural issues.

Let's take a step back. One could easily argue that Caracalla’s extension of Roman citizenship to all free men within the Empire in 212 C.E. was prompted more by necessity as progressivism. The same can be said for the Magna Carta, signed by King John I of England in 1215, which placed limits on the power of the sovereign, or the 1688 Bill of Rights, which created in England a constitutional monarchy. But it is undeniable that all represented steps toward the modern liberal democracy that we enjoy today, which we would regard as superior to the times when none, or one, or the few, were free.

We can look to our own, more recent history, to the liberty, and the enfranchisement, of African-Americans and women, of the removal of restrictions on property ownership by Asian immigrants, and the Miranda Rights. The trend and trajectory of the progress of human civilization is toward greater, not lesser, individual freedom, limited by the harm principle, guided by a state that is, ideally, strong enough to enforce the law, free enough to provide the greatest possible individual and collective liberty, and wise enough not to attempt to legislate tolerance or morality.

It has been a slow path, an undulating, halting journey toward universal liberty, one that perhaps can only poorly described as progress. I have cherry-picked history, glossed over humanity’s recidivist tendencies toward conquest and oppression, the temptation to construct conflict and corrupt the blessing of distinct identities to divide and rule. Who among us is here who cannot look back into our ancestral past, and find a lineage unscathed by our own Trail of Tears?

Proposition 8 is bad on a number of counts. It sets a precedent for constitutional amendment that is low, that will encourage others to codify their vision of how the world should operate in what should be a very difficult document to modify.

It creates the ground for retroactive implementation of the amendment to nullify existing marriages to same-sex couples, further damaging both the letter and the spirit of the legislative process.

Yet perhaps most destructive is the corrosiveness that the bitter electoral battle has created between the different camps.

I note that the Constitution, the Holy Bible, and the Origin of Species are all, in it of themselves, pieces of paper. They contain information and knowledge. Yet they are absolutely worthless in it of themselves. They retain power and influence only insofar as individual humans are able to read and interpret these documents, apply them to their own lives, and attempt, with varying levels of care and wisdom, to shape the course of human progress by the knowledge and wisdom so created by our collective thoughts and actions. We ultimately must judge the success and merits of Christianity, of science, and of America by its living legacy, by those who represent and promote each.

By this metric, I believe this proposition damages this living legacy of extending rights and the Christian values of love and inclusiveness.

Our future depends upon our ability to recognize the merits of our ideas and values, new and old, resolving conflicts where they exist, as best we can, and occasionally subordinating the desire for consistency in one realm with adherence to a broader one. I do not yet know if this means that I must choose between Leviticus or On Liberty—thus far, I feel I have navigated, however imperfectly, the margins of identity of Christianity, science, and American citizen. What I do know is that the greatest burden, and the greatest virtue, is to be honest with the demands of each.

And the demands of what I feel Christianity to be truly about – faith in a benevolent higher power, hope in the potential for humanity to improve itself, and love for the “other” – and what I feel America is about, and what I feel the pursuit of knowledge is about, all indicate that it is damaging to use the authority of the state to eliminate the rights of a minority simply because the majority wishes it so.

Christ’s message of love and inclusiveness, especially for individuals at the margins of society, is at odds with the metaphorical interpretation of the tale of Sodom and Gomorrah. Yet I cannot conclude that the existence of the latter invalidates the former—just as we recognize the precedence of federal law over state statutes, I recognize the supremacy of the spirit of Christianity can, and in this case does, trump the letter of Christian law as interpreted from Genesis 19. (In fact, I tend to agree with the Jewish interpretation that hostility to the “stranger”, and not homosexual relations, is the real sin that is proscribed in the story.)

Each of us is ultimately responsible for the choice of belief and action. We are the heirs of the historical legacy that enables us to live as we do today. But we are not the final heirs. With our limitations, but also our greatest possible ability, we must look to the lessons of the past and the realities of the present. And we must live, lead, and govern with an eye to the world we wish to leave to those who come after us, those who are yet innocent of the conflict and hatred that poison and destroy all it consumes.

As a man who had no father at home, a father who lacked the mental stability to be a father or a husband, I have this to say about the issue of same-sex adoption.

I am far more fortunate than the number of children who enter the sex industry, or are abused by their parents, or have lost their parents to war, famine, or disease. I have seen the triumph of individuals who grew up without support at home, but always in spite of, not because of, their absence of parental leadership and love. I have also worked with, lived with, and laughed with many gay men and women whom I think will be excellent parents.

I have met gay men who were more of a father to me than my biological father. And I will never forget their contribution to my life, to my character, to my conviction that we are far, far more than the simple atomistic identities we frequently apply to others, and ourselves.

If you are worried about what your children will learn, or what it means to have a gay parent living next door, I would encourage you to examine your fears, examine the availability of good parents in society, and consider whether those children deserve the chance to have a parent, of any sex, of any orientation, who cares and loves them. And I would encourage you to focus not just on educating your children in the particulars of right and wrong as you see it, but to give them the character and temperament to live and lead a world of the many, and not the few.

I believe this is how we best serve our God, our nation, our profession, and our future.

I welcome disagreement, and would love to have a dialogue with anyone who agrees, disagrees, or is curious how I came to this conclusion. I will promise to not have the goal of convincing anyone, but rather to listen and learn, as I hope those who read this also learn, if not about themselves, about me and what I believe.

Early thoughts on the election

Some preliminary thoughts on the election tonight - I'm still processing, and will write more later.

I have a lot of fun memories from this election. In Leesburg, VA, I waited in line for two hours to listen to Barack Obama speak eleven days from the election. After waiting for two hours in line, and still far from the security checkpoint, I remember muttering – “This line is ridiculous. That’s it—I’m voting for McCain.” I got laughs, not punches – it was great that we were committed to the candidate, but had a sense of humor.

He will bear a tremendous burden. The price he may pay for progress is to be hated, as hated as President Bush. It’s a daunting task – no leader, endowed with both the talent and the desire for public admiration, can take the decline and fall of his or her esteem with complete tranquility.

His speech was complimented for being sedate, almost somber. It drew from many great speeches – echoes from JFK’s first inaugural, and from MLK’s Mountaintop speech. But in terms of tone, I kept going back to Lincoln’s last public address.

On April 11, 1865, two days after Lee’s surrender at Appomattox, Lincoln spoke at the window over the main door of the White House to a crowd assembled on the front lawn. They were excited, and had come with lights and smiles, calling for the President.

Yet he gave no speech of celebration – he spoke of the difficulties that lay ahead for the Union, and emphasized the need for reaching out and building up the devastated South. He articulated his plans, and justified his argument in detail.

Obama was less detailed, more colloquial, and spoke as much to the heart as the head. But he made it clear that unity, not victory, would be his goal – we, not me, his modus operandi.

He’s going to need a hell of a lot of help. Take a page from Lincoln – don’t celebrate, get to work.

Voting

I voted today. Provisionally. I am a Provisional American.

Initially I was simply an American, and a lazy one at that. (Lamerican)

So I applied for and receive an absentee ballot, making me an Absent American. (Absent-American)
I receive the absentee ballot, and in my absent-mindedness, failed to note the part that I would be committing some measure of fraud if I were to vote absentee, but were actually available to vote on November 4. This made me a Scared American. (Scamerican)

Now, being a Scared American should be familiar to me, since the last few years have been pretty scary, partly because of what’s happened to us, and partly because what we’ve done around the world. But I am particularly scared of anything that involves the possibility of me making a boyfriend name Maurice in prison. (I am afraid I would find out why they nickname prison “the poke”.)

Yet being an Absent American, I happened to absently lose my absentee ballot. How embarrassing, especially since, in all probability, one of the three dogs in our house ate it. It was then that I realized that I was probably too stupid to vote. Accepting that I was a Moronic American (Mormerican) was one of the hardest things I’d ever done in my life, but then the slow paralysis of idiocy slowly flowed over me like 750 mg of Vicodin and took the pain and shame away.

But compelled by a proud citizen mentality, I decided I needed to try to vote, even though the chain of events outlined above could be taken as a sign from God that, for the good of the country, I really shouldn’t. So, now humbled before the difficulties of the electoral process, I, the Humble American (Humerican) went to my registered polling place.

I had to register provisionally, which was ok since I had a delightful conversation with the kind polling judge and got to sit next to a very attractive goth chick who was in a similar predicament. So, in a state of arousal, confusion, and stupidity, I cast my vote, provisionally, as a Provisional American (Promerican).
But on the way home, I had an experience that reminded me what this election was really about.

I stopped into Starbucks, and picked up a tall coffee, free today for those who voted. I waited patiently for the man who ordered ahead of me to pass me the half-and-half, at which point I realized that he, too, had gotten a tall coffee for donning an “I Voted” sticker. He had a pleasant southern accent, and we commiserated over the fact that Ben and Jerry’s by the creek was offering free ice cream for voting.

It’s entirely possible that he voted differently than I did. But in that brief exchange, I realized that there was no Red America, nor a Blue America, a White America or a Black America. There is only the light brown America of coffeeshops, where effete liberals can meet Southern rednecks over a free cup of joe (without thinking of “that Joe”) and enjoy the bliss that is the soul of America: life, liberty, and the pursuit of free shit.

God bless this country, and the naked mermaid that is our symbol.

WaMu in Chico gets tagged

Found this on Fatwallet. Apparently taggers and thugs have 401(k)s too.

http://pics.mrlandlord.com/Sean(CA)/index.mgi2?name=wamu1

http://pics.mrlandlord.com/Sean(CA)/index.mgi2?name=Wamu2

http://pics.mrlandlord.com/Sean(CA)/index.mgi2?name=Wamu3

The Bear, the Eagle, and the Gap

Who controls low-earth orbit controls near-earth space. Who controls near-earth space dominates Terra. Who dominates Terra determines the destiny of humankind.

- Astropolitik: Classical Geopolitics for the Space Age


"The (Russian) Empire Strikes Back" was already used by the Time leader article on Aug. 12. On the subject of space...

On Tuesday and Wednesday, I attended the Cornell Workshop on Space Security. It was a great conference, with lots of interesting discussions about issues in space security. Particular attention was given to China's anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons test in 2007 and the US ballistic missile defense program. I will write notes and thoughts about the conference later this weekend.

For now, I want to broach the issue of what the Russia-Georgia conflict and cooling relations with the Kremlin may mean for the US manned space program. In particular, what will happen when the Shuttle is retired in 2010, with no foreseeable replacement until Ares-I/Orion goes online in 2016 (2018? 2020?)

With so much happening on Earth in the financial and political arenas, I'm finding that I'm a bit rusty on space politics. However, Jeff Foust's blog, spacepolitics.org, remains a useful source for quick bits of space-related news.

An August 13 entry mentions that a planned extension of NASA's exemption of the Iran, North Korea and Syria Nonproliferation Act (INKSNA) is probably dead. That exemption permits NASA to buy Progress and Soyuz flight services from Russia, which, in the absence of a working Shuttle program, are the only way for US astronauts to get to and from the International Space Station, as well as perform manned repairs of space assets.

Read the comments - there's one indicating some fighting between the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics and NASA over the testimony of the AIAA director to Congress, suggesting that additional resources be devoted to a near-term human-qualified capsule for low Earth orbit access, rather than to an acceleration of Constellation.

The United States has already paid for Soyuz flights in 2010-2011.
Michael Griffin has indicated that Soyuz flights to cover 2011-2016 would be in excess of $2 billion.

I'm still processing this information, but this could become politically salient. After all, if Florida's electoral votes (I'm discounting the online space community's impact) convinced Obama to reverse his position on delaying Constellation to fund federal science education programs, the threat of sending additional money to a revanchist Russia might lead to an increase in funding to NASA (and the contractor who wins the bid).

This picture on my wall

About two weeks ago, I decided to take advantage of the recent run-up in gold and silver prices to sell some of my collection.

I had stumbled across the Ithaca coin shop a couple months ago, and had gotten to know the dealer, Harold, pretty well. Even when I wasn't interested in buying and selling coins, I would sometimes stop by and, in Harold's words, take advantage of the barbershop talk. While there, I found this picture of Bobby Kennedy in a black and gold frame.

Harold told me that the picture belonged to a woman who had hit hard times - her husband was unemployed and suffering from Parkinson's Disease - and had asked Harold to help her sell some items for cash. Among them was this picture of Bobby Kennedy in a black and gold frame.

I have a vague recollection of a movie or a book - I'm not sure which - in which a character is talking to another about doing the right thing. The dialogue goes something like this:

All across this country there are people living in godforsaken shacks and have known seven generations of nothing. And yet, these people have pictures of Jack and Bobby Kennedy on their walls. You need to be loyal to whatever keeps those pictures on those walls.

I bought it for $20. Now it hangs on a wall in my house.

It reminds me of two other pictures I have - both of my grandfather.



In one, he is photographed in front of a giant statue of the Buddha with Kyoshi Takahama, one of the leading haiku poets of the 20th century and my grandfather's teacher. Had things gone differently, my grandfather might have gone back to Japan to take over the magazine Takahama-sama edited. As it turned out, my grandfather led his own haiku group well into his eighties. He would often take them on long trips into the desert in his Cadillac, which never failed to inspire his work.



The second picture is of my grandfather and many other Japanese men in an undisclosed location in Arizona. Shortly after Pearl Harbor, the FBI rounded up a number of Japanese-Americand leaders. I believe my grandfather was picked up because he was a prominent farmer and treasurer of the local Japanese school. It's interesting to see the expressions of the men - some smile, as if it were any other picture. Some seem tired. My grandfather has a look that I know well, yet find it difficult to place into words. Stoic, grim, calm. Endure what is to come, for this, too, shall pass.

To these two pictures, I now add this one of Robert Kennedy. I need to figure out what keeps these pictures on my wall, and be loyal to that.

The Devil Went Down to Georgia

To be fair, I'm still sorting out the causal reasons and contributions of the belligerent parties in the current war in South Ossetia. But it was a clever title for a serious topic. Right now the facts are still unclear enough that it's not wise to lay blame completely on any party.

Tensions between Russia and Georgia spiked when a Georgian drone was shot down by a Russian fighter, allegedly taking off from Abkhazia.

But why now? Why would Russia launch airstrikes and move into South Ossetia now?

A couple possibly related factors:

1. Foreign firms are presently finding it harder to do business in Russia

Foreign companies have found it increasingly frustrating to do business in Russia. In particular, the experiences of Mechel and BP suggest that foreign multinationals face the risk of nationalization or interference from the Kremlin on joint projects.

On July 24, Putin criticized Mechel's CEO and accused it of selling resources to Russia at higher prices than those charged to other countries. This caused the stock to plunge 38 percent.

TNK-BP, the joint partnership between energy multinational BP and Russian assets, also faced trouble that month. On July 6, BP sued its Russian partners (four billionaires) in the High Court of London for the equivalent of US$360 million over a tax claim lodged on June 30. The CEO has faced a lot of visa problems, and left Russia on July 25, claiming "harassment".

Some are drawing parallels between the fate of Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Yukos in 2003, but the circumstances concerning Mechel are a bit different. A war in Georgia could distract from issues internal to Russia.

Other than those two high-profile cases, I don't know what is going on internally in Russia right now. Someone who does should comment on whether or not there is a current power struggle going on between Putin and his allies and other Russian elites.

2. Oil is off 22% from its record highs in July.

The price of oil has fallen from a peak of $147.02 per barrel on July 11, 2008 to Friday's close at $115.20 on the NYMEX.

Georgia contains part of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline, which was expected by 2009 to transport approximately 1 million barrels of oil per day from Azerbaijan's Caspian Sea oil fields. Evidently Georgia is entitled to transit fees of about US $62.5 million per year (Wikipedia)

Georgia also contains part of the Baku-Supsa pipeline, which can transport up to 145,000 barrels per day (though current capacity may be lower). Apparently Russian strikes have attacked the port of Poti, close to the Supsa oil terminal.

The Baku-Novorrossiysk pipeline, which bypasses Georgia and runs from Azerbaijan to Russia, has stopped transporting oil as of February 2008 because fo disputes between Russia and Azerbaijan about natural gas supplies. (Wikipedia)

An attack/invasion of Georgia would have the near-term effect of increasing oil prices, with possibly the long-term effect of extending Russian influence over the Caspian oil fields. Interestingly, Georgia reports that approximately 30 Russian missiles or bombs were launched at the pipeline, but none had hit. If true, this might suggest a desire to highlight the threat of a shock to oil supplies while preserving the existing infrastructure.

Also note that BP is the largest shareholder (30.1%).

3. The Olympic Games

Opening ceremonies for the 2008 Olympics took place on Friday. The timing is odd, to say the least. It may be that someone decided that the Olympics would provide enough of a distraction to deflect attention away from an attack - hopefully delaying the international community's response long enough to make regime change - if that is the goal - a fait accompli.

Though it seems a bridge too far to say it's planned, at the very least, if there's an attack within China, it will seem miniscule by comparison to a full-blown war in South Ossetia/Abkhazia.

So what happens now? Vague predictions:

1. The price of oil jumps on Monday. Global oil consumption is about 80-85 million barrels per day. Right now, I can only guess as to the magnitude of the jump, though I plan on updating this post later with historical indications of what taking 1 million barrels per day off the global market might do.

2. Ukraine decides whether or not to provoke a Russian response by restricting portage of Russian naval vessels. It's already given some indications that this is a possibility, although there's nothing solid.

3. Stock markets around the world drop in response to the jump in oil.

4. The US will talk to the Czech Republic about using the withdrawal of the theater missile defense to be deployed in the CR as a bargaining chip to mitigate Russia's actions in Georgia, and to retain an agenda on Iran.

5. Someone mentions switching positions on Kosovo, causing another diplomatic incident (whether it's official or not).

Thoughts?

Nineteen Eighty-Four

In accordance to the principles of Doublethink, it does not matter if the war is not real, or when it is, that victory is not possible. The war is not meant to be won. It is meant to be continuous. The essential act of modern warfare is the destruction of the produce of human labor. A hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. In principle, the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects. And its object is not victory over Eurasia or Eastasia, but to keep the very structure of society intact. Julia? Are you awake? There is truth, and there is untruth. To be in a minority of one doesn't make you mad.

Updated blog - New posts available!

I've added a number of notes I have written over the last few months, but never uploaded onto this blog. This update should roughly synchronize this blog with my postings on Facebook. Notes on FB becomes pretty ornery after about 50.

Note: the uploaded posts have been dated according to my post dates on Facebook. Consequently, you will need to browse the archives to see them. For now, they should all be visible in the first page. I'll change it in a week or so to a more manageable format (3 postings visible at a time).

If you've got any advice on the layout or the content of this blog, please let me know!

Thanks,

The Management

Stephen Biddle on Iraq - CU-SWAMOS Reception, July 22, 2008

Dr. Stephen Biddle, member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Iraq Study Group, addressed the CU-SWAMOS conference this evening. His speech was focused on the state of Iraq, the changes between now and the situation when he last spoke at SWAMOS, and his perspective on what it would take to stabilize the situation.

A few things before I go into what he said.

First, Dr. Biddle was much more optimistic in his assessment than in the summer of 2007, for a number of reasons apparent in his comments.

Second, unlike his talk in 2007, he did not use two stories about his experiences in Iraq to illustrate the situation in Iraq. Rather, he focused on describing the trends and changes that have taken place at the local, national, and regional level. While this may seem less personal, I felt it allowed him to go into more detail about the overall strategic situation.

Enough from me - here are my draft notes from his talk.

*****

Biddle began by pointing out that strategic objectives should define troop counts and withdrawal schedules, not the other way around. Existing political discussions frequently take a contrary approach, starting with a desired troop level and a withdrawal date, and working from there to define objectives that can be met.

His talk was divided into two main sections:
(1) the causal dynamics of the continuing counterinsurgency/peacekeeping in Iraq
(2) achievable goals

He stated clearly that the probability of achieving the chief goal - avoiding persistent, large-scale violence - had improved dramatically since the last time he spoke in 2007. (In 2007, he claimed success probability of 10%, assuming the US did everything perfectly - and this assessment caused him to claim that he was far more optimistic than most. For those at SWAMOS, yes, I've got proof that Dr. Kirschner was wrong, and Biddle was right in his memory. Sorry Jon - not picking on you.)

He did emphasize that the achievable, positive outcome was not "Eden on the Euphrates" - that is, a vibrant, stable liberal democracy. Instead, the US can hope for, at best, a decentralized state or an authoritarian government similar to that under Saddam Hussein.

*****

Biddle said that the United States had two chief war aims, one humanitarian, and the other narrowly strategic.

1. Humanitarian: avert rapid escalation of violence
2. Strategic: ensure that the war does not spread to the rest of the oil-producing Middle East.

Unlike in 2007, Biddle is optimistic about prospects for success, as defined above, in Iraq.

One of the chief reasons is that the underlying strategic landscape is different from a year ago. He mentioned that the decline in violence has not been ephemeral. It is in fact sustained by a change in the self-interested strategic calculus of the principal combatants in Iraq.

Biddle focused on three particular changes - two which the United States did not plan, one of which we would have actively prevented if we could have.

1. Bombing of the Askariyya (Golden Dome) mosque in Samarra in 2006.

Prior to the bombing, the Sunni insurgency felt that it was in a superior position to Shiite forces. Consequently, their goals were to facilitate an American withdrawal, then retake control of the country.

However, the bombing and subsequent battle in Baghdad over the next year taught them that the Shiite militias were, in fact, far more powerful than they had predicted. This was facilitated by the fact that, prior to Samarra, the Shiite militias' function had been primarily defensive. After the bombing, Shiite militias successfully cleansed Baghdad of Sunni populations.

At the time, most Americans viewed the yearlong battle in Baghdad as a catastrophe. And, Biddle notes, it was, in humanitarian terms. Neither US ground forces nor the Iraqi Army was able to intervene in the struggle. Both opted to stay largely on the sidelines. But, as a consequence, the Sunni insurgency realized that if the Americans withdrew, Shiite forces alone could defeat them.

Biddle believes that in 5-10 years, when historians look back upon the Iraq War, they will see the "Battle of Baghdad" as a turning point.

2. Al-Qaeda in Iraq brutality to Sunni coreligionists

The second key shift came as a consequence of the defeat of Sunni insurgents by Shiite militias. Al-Qaeda has dealt harshly with its own allies, often providing severed heads of the children of Sunni leaders viewed to be less than enthusiastic in their support of the insurgency. The Sunni population had tolerated such brutality because their only alternative had been to face Shiite death squads.

This calculus changed after the Battle of Baghdad. Even with Al-Qaeda's help, Sunni insurgents were unable to prevent the Shiite takeover of Baghdad. The calculus that had supported the alliance had changed - in Biddle's words, it had become "all pain and no gain".

At this point, Sunni leaders began approaching US forces and attempted to broker a deal. They offered a cease-fire, in which Sunni forces would not engage US forces, Iraqi army, or other Sunni groups. (Biddle rather conspicuously left out Shiite militias; I assume that the agreement permitted self-defense against Shiite forces.) Furthermore, Sunni leaders would provide biometrics (fingerprints) and a contact list of their armed members and the names of their family. In return, the US provided identifying uniforms (polo shirts, baseball caps, chinos) to help identify non-hostile Sunni forces, recognized the Sunni forces as legitimate police authorities over their current zone of control, and provided a payment of $300 per month, per person. Contrary to some reports, they received no ammunition or armaments - as Biddle dryly pointed out, the insurgency hadn't had a problem with procuring ammunition and arms when it was firing at US forces over the last few years.

Consequently, by mid-2007, the Sunni insurgency had largely died out.

3. "The Surge"

Biddle points out that the negotiated settlements with Sunni leaders depended upon the Surge. The additional US forces helped were not sufficient to guarantee security to the nation as a whole - what they were able to do was provide security in regions where the Sunnis had negotiated cease-fires. With these new allies, Al-Qaeda lost the "cover and concealment" that is needed by any insurgency. Sunni allied forces, often referred to as the Sunni Awakening/Concerned Local Citizens/Sons of Iraq, provided the locations of Al-Qaeda safehouses and bomb-making factories, as well as a list of leadership and operatives.

Al-Qaeda and the Sunni insurgency had facilitated the rise of Shiite militias. These militias, including Jaish al Mahdi, realized that the Shiite population was completely dependent upon them for security. Consequently, the militias began assuming control over necessities and commodities (such as cooking oil) and profiting at the expense of local Shia. Increasingly, they were viewed as predators, not protectors, though the relationship was deemed, as in the Sunni case, as a necessary evil.

The Surge corresponded with the declining popularity of the Jaish al Mahdi, and thus changed the calculus for Shiite militias. In the prior two engagements with US forces, the Shiite militias had met heavy losses. However, the popularity of Moqtada al-Sadr and other militia leaders guaranteed that they would be able to make good their losses. But their eroded support, combined with increased US Army presence, caused many Shiite militias to negotiate a cease-fire.

Consequently, in autumn of 2007, the Sunni and Shiite militias had negotiated peace. Al-Qaeda and the remaining Sunni insurgency had retreated to a few areas in Mosul and its environs.

This change precipitated an interesting development in March/April 2008. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and the Iraqi Army took the fight to the Jaish al Mahdi in Basra. Ultimately - though only with the support of US and British forces - they were able to defeat al-Sadr's forces in Basra.

*****

Biddle notes that Iraq remains in the grip of an ethnosectarian civil war. Two prerequisites are needed for a sustained reduction in violence:

1. Cease fire participants continue to see peace as in their own self-interest
2. The presence of an outside peacekeeper that locals trust.

Biddle feels that #1 has already been achieved through over 200 negotiated cease-fires with various insurgent groups/militias. As he notes, many of these take the form of explicit contracts.

However, #2 remains a tricky issue. Neither Sunnis nor Shia trust the other with weapons, and both remain fully armed. Right now, the only possible outside force that can serve as effective peacekeepers trusted by each side is the US Army.

This brought the talk to the issue of troop withdrawal and counts. Biddle underlined his assessment that early drawdown would be dangerous - as noted in his 2007 talk, he felt that it could lead to a civil/regional war. He felt US forces needed to remain through two critical events in Iraq:

1. Provincial elections (2008)
2. National parliamentary elections (2009)

Biddle anticipates that both would be targeted for violent disruption, and had the potential to spark renewed conflict, depending upon the results.

The Balkans was held up as an example of what the United States should expect regarding its future commitment - a few years of sustained peacekeeping and stability, followed by a gradual reduction to half the existing force. Biddle suggests that a detailed Pentagon study would be needed to assess what forces are needed - but to provide an idea, Biddle recommends that about 100,000 (plus or minus a couple brigades) would be needed. If Iraq remained largely stable through provincial and national elections, then the United States could expect to reduce its forces by about 50% from 2010-2012.

On Afghanistan:

Biddle disagrees with Obama's emphasis that Afghanistan is the central front on the War on Terror, for two reasons:

First, Iraq is substantially more volatile. He notes that Afghanistan is currently under-resourced. (He quotes a figure of 10-15%, which he seemed to indicate should not be taken too seriously.) However, he felt that while things are getting worse, they would get incrementally worse over the course of 2-3 (maybe even 4!) years without running the risk of catastrophe. On the other hand, Iraq's stability is less certain, with the possibility, given a triggering event, of returning to high levels of violence over a matter of weeks.

Second, US interests in Iraq are more critical than its interests in Afghanistan, since Iraq is adjacent to the chief oil-producing nations in the Middle East. At present, Al-Qaeda has a significant presence in neither Iraq nor Afghanistan - it is currently headquartered in western Pakistan. However, Biddle believes if bin Laden were to choose which of the two countries he would rather have as a headquarters, he would probably choose Iraq because of its greater potential instability and resources.

He concludes with a clear call for an Iraq first strategy, akin to the Europe-first strategy that was outlined (though not always followed) in World War II.

I'll fill in Q&A a bit later - it was fairly extensive.

Q1: Where do the militias get their money?

A1: The Shiite militias get a lot of their money from Iran. The Sunnis get money from Saudi Arabia and Syria. Biddle also notes that a lot of money acquired by Ba'athists while Saddam Hussein was in power left the country. [NB: I don't think he mentioned when] Much of that money is returning to Iraq now. Critically, Iraq's own oil revenue helps the insurgency to be financed from internal resources.

Q2: What is your prediction for the configuration of US forces in the Middle East around 2010?

A2: Biddle focused on what he would like to see. He envisions 100,000 ground troops in 10-12 combat brigades. Some would be distributed among Iraqi army, and others doing peacekeeping. The key is to have American forces in sufficient numbers such that their presence is known and available, should fighting flare up. Currently, a lot of the American ground forces have shifted from counterinsurgency to peacekeeping (e.g. helping local law enforcement/militas track down violators of cease-fires using forensics).

Q3: My experience in Pakistan causes me to believe that it will be indefinitely unstable. Your thoughts?

A3: Biddle agrees that Pakistan is "a mess". He feels that principal-agent theory would play a prominent role in analyzing the situation in Pakistan. Pakistan is already waging a counterinsurgency war within its borders, especially in the West. He said that Pakistan deserved its own talk, and would defer to a Pakistan specialist.

Q4: Jonathan Kirschner pointed out that Biddle's talk a year ago claimed that either extreme (immediate withdrawal or continued, indefinite presence) would be preferable to a slow drawdown (a "middle road"). This year, it sounds like Biddle is actually advocating a "middle road" toward withdrawal. He also offered a realist take on Iraq: the issue is not security or confidence-building, but simply that the interests of the players are fundamentally different and irreconcilable. Wouldn't a withdrawal timetable just lead to the respective parties backward inducting and shifting their plans to incorporate the withdrawal date? Furthermore, you assume that the US peacekeeping effort will go through successfully - even if it did, mistakes might be made that would lead to renewed conflict.

A4: Biddle first noted, with humor, that he was happy realists were alive and well at Cornell. He feels, however, that currently it's in everyone's interest to cooperate. The key is to use the Balkans model of continued presence and a shift to peacekeeping to make sure it continues in everyone's interest to adhere to the 200 or so individual cease-fire agreements that have been negotiated.

Q5: How do you anticipate that your plan, McCain's plan, and Obama's plan would be affected by troop fatigue?

A5: The current level of 15 brigades (140,000 troops) is unsustainable.

One of the problems is that the current level may exist, in part, as a negotiation tactic by the current administration to make sure that troop levels aren't drawn down significantly below the minimum needed to maintain stability. (In his words, the administration would probably draw down to about 12 brigades today if they were certain that Obama wouldn't cut the force to 5 brigades upon taking office.)

Biddle feels that a political solution would be to work out a deal by which Bush and, say, an Obama administration would each help with the drawdown.

Q6: How would this assessment change if Israel attacked the Iran nuclear program?

A6: Biddle thinks this would be a huge disaster to American interests. However, he felt that America could prevent an Israeli raid. Israel would likely need to use Iraqi airspace in order to launch a strike. If the US were to withhold the IFF codes, it's possible that the Israelis would not want to run the risk of either crossing their powerful ally, or, barring that, being shot down by American anti-aircraft defenses.

Biddle says that very senior members of the administration have confirmed that the administration does not want a war with Iran. According to them, they have to pretend that military options are on the table to negotiate with a stronger hand to get Iran to dismantle its nuclear weapons program. They also note that it may be perceived to be an empty threat, because of ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In response to a comment that Dick Cheney might decide we should go to war: "Dick Cheney might pull a gun in the Oval Office and get a war in Iran. Life is probabilistic." (Biddle said "Life is probabilistic" a couple times in his talk, to underline that weird things happen that good theorists might not be able to predict or anticipate.)

The Israelis are another matter - they will definitely seek to attack Iran if it does not give up its nuclear ambitions.


Q7: Could you respond to Prime Minister al-Maliki's comments that indicated support for Obama's plan for withdrawal of US forces?

A7: Biddle believes that this is primarily driven by Iraqi domestic politics. He notes a couple key trends:
(1) Incumbents in Iraq are tremendously unpopular.
(2) Even though the al-Mahdi army and insurgent groups may be less popular then they are now, they are still considerably more popular than incumbents. Consequently, it is likely that they will increase their political representation in the upcoming provincial elections.
(3) The Sunnis will also increase their representation, especially in the form of political alignments built around the Sons of Iraq (note: the Sunnis largely boycotted the last election.)

According to Biddle, al-Maliki does not have a political base. He is Prime Minister because he was "everyone's second choice and no one's tenth choice."

Al-Maliki sees an opportunity to position himself as a Shiite nationalist - he can do this by pushing for a withdrawal of American troops.

Predictably, most Iraqi politicians do not want a withdrawal but will not say so publicly. More interestingly, most of the Iraqi people also do not want a withdrawal, but also blame American troops for a lot of the country's problems.

Anti-American rhetoric had been tolerated by the United States as being politically necessary for Iraqi politicians to campaign successfully. However, since the political debate has bid itself up such that withdrawal is a necessary plank in any candidate's platform, it will be difficult to negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) that permits US forces to legitimately remain in the country. However, Biddle thinks there will be a solution - possibly depending on some formula that provides enough flexibility for sufficient ground forces to remain in the country.

Q8: How long can we permit Afghanistan to deteriorate?

A8: Biddle feels that the condition in Afghanistan is not nearly as critical as that in Iraq. This is primarily because of the weakness of support for the Taliban. In Afghanistan, the enemy depends heavily upon ideology and not very much on ethnicity. Furthermore, the Taliban's ideology is itself unpopular with the majority. In Iraq, on the other hand, the prime driver for insurgents is ethnic, not ideological. He reiterated that Afghanistan is under-resourced, and will grow consistently - though steadily - worse, with a crisis occurring in 2-4 years if no additional forces are deployed.


Q9: Is it reasonable to envision UN forces in Iraq?

A9: Yes, but it will take a couple of years. Unlike in most countries, the UN is not very popular (because of the sanctions), and would not be welcomed any more than American troops.

Q10: Where in the world is Moqtada al-Sadr?

A10: He is apparently in Iran studying to be an ayatollah. Biddle claims that he wants to be the new al-Sistani. He is also establishing offices in Europe.

His policies are viewed as inconsistent with the needs and desires of his core constituency - poor Shiites - who seek basic access to necessities and jobs more than global revolution. His eroding political position has made Maliki think he can claim poor Shiites as his political base.

Q11: What could happen domestically that would convince America that your plan is correct? Alternatively, what could happen that would make your plan of 100,000 troops until 2012 impossible?

A11: It's important for negotiations about peacekeeping through 2012 to be distinct from the idea of permanent war. As Biddle pointed out, the Democratic party has been supportive of peacekeeping in the past. He maintains that it is important to recognize that whatever errors were made going into the war, it would be a gross national error to withdraw prematurely and leave an unstable Iraq, where a civil war would extend to a regional war, engulfing most of the oil-producing Middle East.

Epilogue:


Dr. Stephen Biddle is an incredibly impressive person - he's one of the most solid scholars I've met. At Cornell, I've had the privilege of listening to a number of distinguished public figures and academics discuss world affairs. But unlike some of them (Frank Fukuyama comes to mind - not that I'm picking on him), Stephen has a solid delivery, a clear logical structure, and a way of covering just about all the bases in an hour address. Though I've never heard or read any of George Marshall's speeches during World War II, I have heard that a large part of the general's distinctiveness was his ability to think widely and deeply, and articulate that thought in a distilled, concise manner. This is the impression I got today.

I'm also happy to report that, unlike when I greeted General Zinni with a half-chewed Nutter Butter in my mouth, I was able to comport myself with (relative) dignity in this gathering.

As additional evidence of Biddle's solid memory, he remembered that I had sent him an email and given him some astronomy pictures for his daughter, Anna. With a mind like that working on Iraq, I'm sleeping a bit more easily. :)

Dear Bella

< I was listed on Facebook as being "In a Relationship" with Bella Stierwalt. For those of you too lazy to check, Bella is actually an English Bulldog owned by Sabrina, a graduate student in the department. I decided to end our FB relationship for reasons outlined in a letter I wrote below:


Dear Bella,

I know, the FB feed was probably a bad way to find out. But we knew it might happen like this, even if we didn't want to admit it.

We need to remember that we had lots of good times, and that we're both better for having known each other.

Remember Paris? Who could forget when you tore the hair off a French poodle giving me the eye as we walked along the Seine? Or when I held you in my arms as you gave Paris a Taco Bell salute from the observation deck of the Eiffel Tower?

I don't want to focus on what went wrong, but it's probably something worth talking about. I didn't mind the drooling, or the humping of my leg in public - both were kind of cool. And I really didn't care that you refused to get your teeth done - it's so consumer culture anyway.

If you must know, it's the illicit tummy rubbing. I knew you were getting your tummy rubbed by others - I've known since November. I thought it would stop - maybe it's your way of dealing with seasonal affective disorder. But even though spring came a bit late, I thought it would've stopped by now.

I understand that maybe it's ridiculous to think that any one man could satisfy your complicated needs, but still, it was a bit much when I walked into Space Sciences and seeing you in a group tummyrub with the entire Alfalfa group, Patrick, and three plush toys. Who the hell needs three plush toys?

And I know that those were someone else's bite marks on that rawhide bone I gave you on our anniversary.

I have to be honest. I've been told by a lot of women that they assumed I was in a relationship, with, you know, a human woman... the implication being, that some very nice women thought that I was taken and decided not to express interest.

You know that I would never break up with you because I've met someone else, or because you're, you know, a dog. The truth is, I don't really see us getting old together, relishing our golden years before encroaching incontinence takes all the fun out of being a senior citizen.

Bella, you're a wonderful dog, and deserve someone who can love you for the dog you are. You'll find that man/woman/dog/tree someday, and no one will be cheering louder for you than me.

Take care, sweetie. We'll always have Paris.

- Ryan

Thoughts on the 40th anniversary of RFK's assassination

1968 is considered by many historians as an amazing year. It seems a moment in which people felt a decade's worth of emotion in a single year. Revolutions in France and Czechoslovakia. The assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. Race riots in America. Vietnam.

Today marks the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy.

On April 4, 1968, Robert Kennedy was campaigning in Indiana. He was scheduled to give a campaign speech in Indianapolis. As he was boarding a plane, word reached him that Dr. King had been shot. He used the flight to put his thoughts on paper. After landing, Robert learned that Martin was dead.

The two had initially been suspicious of each other - King regarding Kennedy as an example of the timid white reformer, where "tomorrow" was the answer to every problem. Kennedy regarded King as empowering the militants within the Civil Rights Movement, who had hindered their own progress by being "angry". But their relationship would grow to friendship, as they both realized each other's greatness, and their common vision for America.

His advisors cautioned him that the news could be dangerous, and might trigger a riot. He was warned by the Chief of Police in Indianapolis that protection could not be guaranteed, but Kennedy decided to continue. He stood on a podium mounted on a flatbed truck. Looking out on a sea of black faces, he realized that they did not yet know. He then proceeded to give perhaps one of the finest speech ever given to a nation in tears.


http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/rfkonmlkdeath.html

He told them. There was screaming, and wailing. He waited, and continued. He recognized their anger, and told them that the assassin was a white man. He said he shared their feelings, and remembered what it felt like when his brother had been killed. It may have been the first time he had spoken in public about his brother's assassination. He quoted a poem by Aeschylus:


Even in our sleep, pain which cannot forget
falls drop by drop upon the heart,
until, in our own despair,
against our will,
comes wisdom
through the awful grace of God.

That night, 110 American cities burned, with 43 killed and thousands injured in riots. But that night, Indianapolis remained calm. Such was the totality of the grief, that it erased, for one moment, the gulf separating a white man of privilege, quoting a Greek poet, and the poor, black audience.

Just two months later, on June 5, 1968, Robert Kennedy was assassinated in the Ambassador hotel in California. His eulogy, delivered by his brother Ted, drew heavily from Robert's own speeches, in particular, a speech delivered two years earlier to South African students on the Day of Affirmation. The audience, and the world, heard him speaking beyond the grave, words as important in 1968 as they were in 1966, important and relevant for all times.

Here is the text (audio available here: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/ekennedytributetorfk.html), and a partial video of the speech.


Watch CBS News Videos Online
--
On behalf of Mrs. Kennedy, her children, the parents and sisters of Robert Kennedy, I want to express what we feel to those who mourn with us today in this Cathedral and around the world.

We loved him as a brother, and as a father, and as a son. From his parents, and from his older brothers and sisters -- Joe and Kathleen and Jack -- he received an inspiration which he passed on to all of us. He gave us strength in time of trouble, wisdom in time of uncertainty, and sharing in time of happiness. He will always be by our side.

Love is not an easy feeling to put into words. Nor is loyalty, or trust, or joy. But he was all of these. He loved life completely and he lived it intensely.

A few years back, Robert Kennedy wrote some words about his own father which expresses the way we in his family felt about him. He said of what his father meant to him, and I quote: "What it really all adds up to is love -- not love as it is described with such facility in popular magazines, but the kind of love that is affection and respect, order and encouragement, and support. Our awareness of this was an incalculable source of strength, and because real love is something unselfish and involves sacrifice and giving, we could not help but profit from it." And he continued, "Beneath it all, he has tried to engender a social conscience. There were wrongs which needed attention. There were people who were poor and needed help. And we have a responsibility to them and to this country. Through no virtues and accomplishments of our own, we have been fortunate enough to be born in the United States under the most comfortable conditions. We, therefore, have a responsibility to others who are less well off."

That is what Robert Kennedy was given. What he leaves to us is what he said, what he did, and what he stood for. A speech he made to the young people of South Africa on their Day of Affirmation in 1966 sums it up the best, and I would like to read it now:

"There is discrimination in this world and slavery and slaughter and starvation. Governments repress their people; millions are trapped in poverty while the nation grows rich and wealth is lavished on armaments everywhere. These are differing evils, but they are the common works of man. They reflect the imperfection of human justice, the inadequacy of human compassion, our lack of sensibility towards the suffering of our fellows. But we can perhaps remember -- even if only for a time -- that those who live with us are our brothers; that they share with us the same short moment of life; that they seek -- as we do -- nothing but the chance to live out their lives in purpose and happiness, winning what satisfaction and fulfillment they can.

Surely, this bond of common faith, this bond of common goal, can begin to teach us something. Surely, we can learn, at least, to look at those around us as fellow men. And surely we can begin to work a little harder to bind up the wounds among us and to become in our own hearts brothers and countrymen once again. The answer is to rely on youth -- not a time of life but a state of mind, a temper of the will, a quality of imagination, a predominance of courage over timidity, of the appetite for adventure over the love of ease. The cruelties and obstacles of this swiftly changing planet will not yield to the obsolete dogmas and outworn slogans. They cannot be moved by those who cling to a present that is already dying, who prefer the illusion of security to the excitement and danger that come with even the most peaceful progress.

It is a revolutionary world we live in, and this generation at home and around the world has had thrust upon it a greater burden of responsibility than any generation that has ever lived. Some believe there is nothing one man or one woman can do against the enormous array of the world's ills. Yet many of the world's great movements, of thought and action, have flowed from the work of a single man. A young monk began the Protestant reformation; a young general extended an empire from Macedonia to the borders of the earth; a young woman reclaimed the territory of France; and it was a young Italian explorer who discovered the New World, and the 32 year-old Thomas Jefferson who [pro]claimed that "all men are created equal."

These men moved the world, and so can we all. Few will have the greatness to bend history itself, but each of us can work to change a small portion of events, and in the total of all those acts will be written the history of this generation. *It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped.* Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.

Few are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality for those who seek to change a world that yields most painfully to change. And I believe that in this generation those with the courage to enter the moral conflict will find themselves with companions in every corner of the globe.

For the fortunate among us, there is the temptation to follow the easy and familiar paths of personal ambition and financial success so grandly spread before those who enjoy the privilege of education. But that is not the road history has marked out for us. Like it or not, we live in times of danger and uncertainty. But they are also more open to the creative energy of men than any other time in history. All of us will ultimately be judged, and as the years pass we will surely judge ourselves on the effort we have contributed to building a new world society and the extent to which our ideals and goals have shaped that event.

*The future does not belong to those who are content with today, apathetic toward common problems and their fellow man alike, timid and fearful in the face of new ideas and bold projects. Rather it will belong to those who can blend vision, reason and courage in a personal commitment to the ideals and great enterprises of American Society.* Our future may lie beyond our vision, but it is not completely beyond our control. It is the shaping impulse of America that neither fate nor nature nor the irresistible tides of history, but the work of our own hands, matched to reason and principle, that will determine our destiny. There is pride in that, even arrogance, but there is also experience and truth. In any event, it is the only way we can live."

That is the way he lived. That is what he leaves us.

My brother need not be idealized, or enlarged in death beyond what he was in life; to be remembered simply as a good and decent man, who saw wrong and tried to right it, saw suffering and tried to heal it, saw war and tried to stop it.

Those of us who loved him and who take him to his rest today, pray that what he was to us and what he wished for others will some day come to pass for all the world.

As he said many times, in many parts of this nation, to those he touched and who sought to touch him:

"Some men see things as they are and say why.
I dream things that never were and say why not."

I turn to this speech, periodically, to remind me of something about myself, and about human nature in general, whenever I seem in danger of forgetting it. I couldn't tell you what it is - all I can say is that this is the single most important speech I have ever heard. If I had to describe it, I would say that it is the touchstone to my self-awareness of citizenship and dignity.

We have wandered the desert for 40 years, with manna and misery, but unlike the ancient Israelites, we see not the frontier of the Promised Land. But this speech, and this life, at least serves as a guide to what we can be, what must be, and what will be.

Sputnik 50th Anniversary Speech

An edited, condensed version of the article I wrote on Sputnik in October. Recorded and on Youtube for a Science Communication project.

Speech delivered at Toastmasters, May 15, 2008

On October 4, 1957, Leave it to Beaver premiered on CBS. This show, more than any other, would capture the spirit of optimism and simplicity that characterized America at that time. Few Americans were aware that that same day, the Soviet Union had launched the first man-made satellite into space - Sputnik. The illusion of innocence was evaporating as the beep-beep of the Red Moon rising ticked off the seconds of the new era.

Sputnik immediately challenged the basic assumptions upon which Western security and American confidence, rested. American confidence depended upon the assumption that, by empowering the individual and not the state, a free and open society could better harness the collective energies and intelligence of its citizens to preserve peace and prosperity. Postwar American strategy presumed scientific superiority and depended upon high-tech solutions — in particular, a nuclear bomber deterrent — to balance Soviet numbers in Europe. Imagine the reaction, then, when it became apparent that this backward, repressive regime was able to beat the free world to the ultimate missile. It didn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that if the Soviets could launch a satellite into space, they could launch a nuclear weapon at American cities.

The American response was swift and substantial. In 1958, Congress created NASA to better direct the efforts of America’s various military and civilian aeronautical programs, whose petty rivalries had prevented the United States from being first to space. In time, America would use its own satellites to provide needed intelligence about the world beyond the iron curtain. That same year, Congress passed the National Defense and Education Act, which revamped science education and, for the first time, provided massive amounts of financial aid for college students.

Yet in spite of Eisenhower’s efforts to reassure the American people, fears of American technical inferiority and a “missile gap” helped decide the 1960 presidential election. Not since World War II, and perhaps never since, have science and technology been so politically central, so intimately linked in the American mind with the survival of the free world. Space exploration was a vision that transformed potency into existence, dreams into global impacts and politics into progress.

Sputnik created a host of institutions and a strong federal commitment to fund science. But its greatest, most critical legacy is a generation of scientists and citizens who embraced that shared vision of at last touching the heavens.

They were inspired and organized, trained and mentored, and overcame fear and challenges to explore the possibilities of this new age. These individuals now teach our classes, and serve in leadership positions in all areas of society. These men and women continue to expand the frontiers of science, to bring us sometimes wonderful, sometimes frightening, but unfailingly miraculous tomorrows.

No one living in the age of Sputnik, save the most farsighted scientists and unrepentant dreamers, could have imagined the world of today. We are equally ill-equipped to predict the events of the next half-century, either here on Earth, or in space.

This new ocean, like the seas of the twentieth century, may become the battlegrounds for bloody conflict. Or, space might be the exception in human history, the one frontier not consecrated with the blood of the innocent as well as the brave.

Perhaps in our efforts to explore beyond this pale blue dot, we might find the wisdom and means to build, here at home, what Langston Hughes called “the land that never has been yet — and yet must be/The land where every man is free.”

Whatever the future holds, one thing is certain — America and the world depend upon the genius, vision and character of its citizens, who dare to ask why, dare to dream, dare to challenge the frontiers of what is known, and dare to challenge themselves to become better through greater knowledge and wisdom.

History in general, and Sputnik in particular, tell us that there is little that collective human action cannot overcome, though it be matched against great challenges, natural or man-made. Thanks to that belief, and those believers, we can look at the heavens today and the earth below, with both greater knowledge and appreciation than any other generation in all history.

The Bonus Army

Information about a little piece of American History: inspired by a quote.

The Bonus Army

(from Partners in Command)

With the nation mired in an economic crisis, World War I veterans lobbied to be paid the bonus promised them when they had signed up to fight in France. A "Bonus Army" of veterans descended on Washington to pressure Congress to act, but in July 1931 the Bonus Bill failed. Encamped in the swampy Anacostia Flats, the Bonus Army (some five thousand strong, including women and children, all living in hovels) became increasingly militant, greeting police patrols with bricks and stones. At the end of July 1931, Secretary of War Patrick J. Hurley ordered MacArthur to intervene: "Proceed immediately to the scene of disorder.... Surround the affected area and clear it without delay." Summoned to the chief of staff's office, Eisenhower was ordered to accompany MacArthur at the head of the troops. Eisenhower was skeptical: "I told him that the matter could easily become a riot and I thought it highly inappropriate for the Chief of Staff of the Army to be involved in anything like a local or street-corner embroilment." MacArthur waved off Eisenhower's warning: there was incipient revolution in the air, he said, and he was going to do something about it.

With MacArthur in the lead, troops under the command of George Patton used tear gas to disperse the camp. the decision brought howls of protest from a nation that remembered the use of gas in the Great War. Told by President Hoover to use restraint and to stay out of Anacostia Flats, MacArthur later claimed that he never received such an order. That was a lie, and MacArthur and Eisenhower knew it. MacArthur had received the order; he just refused to obey it. Eisenhower was horrified by MacArthur's actions, but he defended them, writing an official report for MacArthur that was a model of discretion. But the difference between the two was obvious for all who saw them at Anacostia Flats: "there is MacArthur in full regalia, complete with several decks of ribbons, looking sternly upon the 'battlefield,' with the look of eagles in his eyes," a reporter later reflected. "Next to him is Ike, dressed in a regular unadorned uniform. If you take a close look at the expression on Eisenhower's face, you realize it is one of cold, caustic contempt. This is the closed Eisenhower, who later observed he had learned acting from MacArthur." Eisenhower was enraged by MacArthur's actions, telling the historian Stephen Ambrose in an interview toward the end of his life, "I told that dumb son of a bitch not to go up there." [1]







One footnote - one of the leaders of the protest was Joe Angelo, winner of the Distinguished Service Cross for saving his commanding officer, George Patton's life during the Battle of Saint-Mihiel, Sept 1918, during World War I.

Another quote:

In the smoldering aftermath, a dazed, rail thin Joe Angelo approached his old boss but was harshly rebuked. "I do not know this man," Major Patton growled. "Take him away and under no circumstances permit him to return." [2]

[1] Mark Perry, Partners in Command
[2] http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/5532