Look maybe your method of massage differs from mine...
A story from CNN tonight says that when users type in "go to hell" on Google, they come up with the MSFT home page. I tried it out of curiosity. My number one result is hell.com. I then tried the search phrase with it in quotations. Again, no MSFT. Not sure about the story or how they're searching, but I can't seem to get MSFT to come up using hell as a search term on google.

1. Attempt One: go to hell
2. Attempt Two: "go to hell"

It would be nice if CNN would provide links such as these in their stories so we don't have to take their word on it, or do it ourselves and come up with an empirical result that would seem to debunk the entire story.
- posted by levinson @ 9/30/2002 03:57:00 PM

 
Pizza Delivery
Once Saddam is gone, what's our plan? We fly in, oust him (presumably in 2 months or less) and then what? Paul Wolfowitz, a/k/a the reason we're about to invade, feels this way:

'''You hear people mock it by saying that Iraq isn't ready for Jeffersonian democracy ... [w]ell, Japan isn't Jeffersonian democracy, either. I think the more we are committed to influencing the outcome, the more chance there could be that it would be something quite significant for Iraq. And I think if it's significant for Iraq, it's going to cast a very large shadow, starting with Syria and Iran, but across the whole Arab world, I think.''

Wolfowitz is obviously aware that nation building (that damn phrase) is a messy business filled with uncertainties. He is, nonetheless, optimistic that a democratic Iraq (whenever it shows up) will be influential throughout the region. Condi Rice assures us that the, "US will be 'completely devoted' to the reconstruction of Iraq as a unified, democratic state." (quoting Financial Times story) Continuing, for a moment, with Wolfowitz:

"I don't think it's unreasonable to think that Iraq, properly managed -- and it's going to take a lot of attention, and the stakes are enormous, much higher than Afghanistan -- that it really could turn out to be, I hesitate to say it, the first Arab democracy, or at least the first one except for Lebanon's brief history ... [a]nd even if it makes it only Romanian style, that's still such an advance over anywhere else in the Arab world."

While there are no specifics, we now know what the endgame in Iraq is. At the minimum, Romanian-style democracy. Does Iraq resemble Romania? Or does it more resemble Yugoslavia (a/k/a Croatia Serbia Bosnia -erzegovina Macedonia Kosovo Montenegro Albania Yugoslavia)? How many troops and how many years and how many dollars will it take to accomplish this task? I realize that Lindsey has esitmated that the invasion would cost $200 billion, but that's not my question. I think we need to address these issues especially given our conduct in the aforementioned Afghanistan. While there wasn't a lot of time to plot out the aftermath of Afghanistan, there is with Iraq. But let's set that aside for the moment and imagine that everything has gone to plan and we now have a thriving democracy in Iraq. Will it cast a "shadow" over the rest of the arab world? Will its neighbors rise up in democracies? Do we want a wave of revolutions in the middle east? The shadow idea reminds me of the domino theory concerning Vietnam. I don't give the "shadow" concept much creedence. Why hasn't Cuba thrown off Communism under the shadow of the US? Why hasn't Iran abandoned fundamentalism under the shadow of Turkey? Why hasn't Syria? Egypt? Why hasn't Pakistan converted itself on the model of its former province Bangladesh? Countries aren't football teams. They don't copy each other from week to week.

Staying in the hypothetical for a minute. Iraq has created its democracy and has had successful elections. What will be the reaction of the totalitarian regimes in Iran, Saudi and Egypt? Will they sit idly by? Or will they move to strengthen their regimes both within and outside their borders? In the upheaval after WWII, Russia pushed itself forward and created the Soviet Union in order to secure its safety in Europe. What will Iran and Turkey do with their Kurdish populations while the newly independent Iraqi Kurds secure some seats in the Iraqi parliament?

Will the new Iraq make peace with Israel?

Will the Arab Street consider Iraq simply a pawn of the totalitarian US? These are the questions of an amateur spitballing at his keyboard. All of them and more are variables that must be considered as we take steps in the middle east.
- posted by levinson @ 9/26/2002 12:03:00 PM

 
Hard A-lee!
Now we're getting somewhere. Evidence of this sort is what needs to be compiled. Of course, Ms. Rice also told us that there was no way anyone could know that terrorists would use airplanes as weapons. Notice also that in 72 hours we've gone from no mention of al-Qaeda in Iraq (the Brits) to al-Qaeda in northern Iraq (which isn't controlled by Saddam) to Saddam training al-Qaeda to use chemical weapons and hiding them in Baghdad. Proof positive that you can't separate Iraq and al-Qaeda in the war on terror. Here's a question. If Saddam is an imminent (and eminent) threat to the region and the world, why hasn't he at least taken back the northern part of his country? It's just a bunch of Kurds up there. Toss some chemical weapons, roll the troops in and take back the north. Note to self, work on a dunno-list for the Invasion of Iraq.
- posted by levinson @ 9/26/2002 08:52:00 AM

 
Ready About?
It seems, in direct refutation to my posts, that Rumsfeld has and has shared evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda have links. Permit me to remain dubious of this statement as it has not been elaborated upon.

"Presumably, within this classified briefing, there was some evidence offered," said CNN Correspondent Jamie McIntyre, who is traveling with Rumsfeld. "But if it was very compelling evidence that really made a link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, you can bet we would have heard more about it by now."

And here's an interesting statement from the Dubba, "Both of them need to be dealt with. You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." Right! Wrong! Almost went two-for-two there. It is vitally important that we keep the two separate when we talk about the war on terror until the in fact join forces. Even at that point, dealing with the two entails very different things. A solid attempt to bring the premise of linking al Qaeda and Iraq to bear on our "need" to invade Iraq, but the Dubba was called for a foot fault.
- posted by levinson @ 9/25/2002 11:30:00 AM

 
You're Not Being the Ball, Danny
The dossier released by Tony Blair on Iraq's WMD's is interesting reading especially when asking the question, "Is there evidence for the US to invade Iraq?" My answer remains no. The dossier does provide some interesting points about Saddam that (in their obviousness) did not occur to me before.

Saddam continues to attach great importance to the possession of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, which he regards as being the basis for Iraq's regional power. He is determined to retain these capabilities

While it is difficult to discern Saddam's position as he sees it (something a little HUMINT might change), it seems clear that he is extremely wary of both Iran and Saudi Arabia and seeks deterrents to their acting against him as he is sure they would given the chance. He therefore seeks to develop weapons that can act as deterrents to these forces. Were he to gain a surplus of these weapons, it is not clear that he would once again attack a neighbor given what happened last time he invaded. These deterrents also give him a chip at the poker table of middle eastern politics. Iran has a clear nuclear program that Saddam undoubtedly sees as directed at him. Being able to stand eyeball to eyeball with Iran is paramount to his survival. What he have here is an incomplete outline of a regional conflict that was in full scale war 15 years ago and has been festering ever since. The question, then, is how does this conflict effect the US's interests? The administration has released its strategy (.pdf format) for its term in office in which it gives itself carte blanche to inject the US into any country in the world it sees fit. (p. 15)

The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction � and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy�s attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.

What reason do we see for dealing with Iraq? One, Saddam threatens our oil interests. It is doubtful he would attack those again. Such a venture would need a massive and blatant arms buildup that could not be concealed or ignored. Second, he threatens us directly. Unlikely as the British dossier notes that he may retain 20 al-Hussein missles that at best could reach Turkey. Third, he threatens us indirectly. This may be true. He could threaten us indirectly if he has WMD's that he could sell to a terrorist who could then smuggle them out of Iraq and into the US and detonate them. This brings Iraq into our war on terror which is the most immediate threat to the US. According the British dossier, Saddam's potential to act with terrorists is either a non-issue or non-existent. I draw this conclusion from the fact that the dossier does not mention "al-Qaeda," "terror," "terrorist" or "terrorism" once. Nothing in the whole document. This being an assesment on Iraq's WMD's, how it has used them, and their potential for future use, one would think any propensity to use these weapons with terrorists would be addressed.

We have not captured and have no evidence that we have killed the leader's of the largest global terrorist network in the world. Accomplishing this task is both time & resource consuming and extremely difficult. The group remains the greatest threat to the US. I fail to see how diverting our military to invade Iraq will accomplish anything positive in the war on terror. The administration had objected to an independent investigation of intelligence failures prior to 9/11 on the grounds that it would distract from the war on terror. Another war seems to me to be a lot more distracting. It is true (as the administration keeps crowing) that in 1998 Clinton identified Saddam as the greatest threat to the rest of the world. Of course, Saddam didn't destroy the WTC and part of the Pentagon. He also didn't do it 12 months ago. A final thought, Iran has biological and chemical weapons. It is working closely with Russia to build a nuclear bomb. It is an oppressive regime and an unstable force in the region. It also has one of the most psychotic terrorists on the planet (a man who tortured and killed a CIA station chief with his own hands) on its government payroll.
- posted by levinson @ 9/25/2002 10:41:00 AM

 
Care to Play a Game?
The WOPR has brought us back down to yellow alert. Does anyone know why "Elevated" is considered above "High"? If you told me I had an elevated risk of being mugged, I'd be on the lookout, but if you told me I had a high risk of being mugged, I wouldn't carry my wallet.
- posted by levinson @ 9/24/2002 08:43:00 AM

 
On the Other Hand You Have Five Fingers
Mulling over the current rhetoric from the White House on the UN.

''It's time for them to determine whether they'll be the United Nations, or the League of Nations. It's time to determine whether or not they'll be a force for good and peace, or an ineffective debating society[.]"

W has framed the question as one over the legitimacy of the UN. More importantly, he feels that if the Security Council doesn't enforce its resolutions, it ceases to carry the legitimacy to pass such resolutions. This is the kind of black and white rhetoric we heard just after al Qaeda (remember them?) attacked us last fall. With us or against us. Force for good and peace, or an ineffective debating society. Given the history of the UN, one might be careful toeing this line however. You might have to live up to it later in much less clear circumstances. For instance, there are two thorny Security Council resolutions (242 and 338 -- both links .pdf) which deal with the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Res. 242 is 35 years old (forget 10!) and calls for Israel to remove its troops from all areas occupied during the 1967 war. As with his earlier problem with the fall's rhetoric, what will be W's reaction when the Arab states inevitably use current rhetoric to justify UN troops to secure the safety of the Palestinians? How about forcing the issue of the Palestinian refugee issue? As we saw after last fall, other states will quickly adopt the mantra of the US to serve their own interests. Is there any dissident group anywhere in the world that isn't labeled a terrorist organization by the goverment that it opposes?


A thought provoking dispatch from Robert Scheer in Salon today. Not much press is given to the notion that Iraq may indeed be bereft of effective offensive weapons. My interest to this kind of missive is hightened because I have yet to see, or hear of being presented, any evidence that Saddam does in fact have, or is currently producing, such an offensive arsenal. I certainly believe he would if he could but, as Scheer points out, his most effective days of gassing and mongering were when he was (or just after he was) a client of US foreign policy. I won't shed a tear when he's gone, but I am not convinced it's worth sacrificing our soldier's lives now to force this inevitability.
- posted by levinson @ 9/19/2002 07:44:00 PM

 
Snatching Defeat
My opposition to war with Iraq stands until I see or am convinced that others outside the administration have seen enough credible evidence that Saddam is an immediate threat to the US. It may well be that after invading we find such evidence, at which time I'll be happy to eat crow. My general opposition does come with some praise. I think W took a stong step towards reforming the UN. Would that it were for something more pressing for the world's needs than a boondoggle to finish of Daddy's Decade-old Dalliance. My praise is fleeting though for I'm sure that this effective pressing of the UN will not be used again and that once that body has given cover to the invasion, it will once again be shunted aside. Tom Friedman points out what is important about W's speech is that the world does care about and listen to what the US says. The UN is a body without a leader and could be extremely effective if given some direction by one other than a corrupt dictatorship. We have seen that the US can provide that leadership if it so chooses.
- posted by levinson @ 9/16/2002 09:52:00 AM

 
Beating the Wrong Drum
Does Saddam Hussein pose an immediate and growing risk to the safety and security of the United States? No.

Does al Qaeda pose an immediate risk to the safety and security of the United States? Yes.

Is Saddam's dictatorship in Iraq the state that poses the greatest threat to the safety and security of the United States? No.

Is Saddam so great an immediate risk that the US should break with the UN over deposing that regime? No.

Saddam is contained in his hole in Baghdad and any case for his immediate removal by invasion should first be made through the use of up-to-date intelligence on the state of the country, its military and its weapons programs. That has not been done. This information is needed not only to prove to the world that he must be removed now, but to aid our forces in effectively removing all threats the various wings of his regime pose. Moreover, we must have a coherent plan of how to rebuild the country once he have destroyed what is left of its leadership. It would be highly foolish to create a second Afghanistan while the first still smolders. The idea of ousting Saddam is a good one. Our current ideas of when and how to do it are bad ones. I can think of two reasons why there is scant evidence to show the immediate threat Saddam currently poses. One, his country is under high surveillance and all intelligence gathered shows very little. Two, his country is not under high surveillance. The former is a reason against invasion. The latter is inexcusable and a stronger reason against invasion.

Al Qaeda attacked the hearts of American culture, capitalism, government & military and is an immediate and growing danger to the United States. Al Qaeda destroyed the World Trade Center and carved a chunk out of the Pentagon. Why is it that a pazzo in the middle of the desert is a greater danger than this group? Our cabinet secretaries have informed us all that al Qaeda is on the run, but is now reforming and the WOPR has elevated our current terrorist warning level. We have been told that it is inevitable that al Qaeda will strike us again and that we must adjust our lives and civil liberties to combat the threat that they pose. We have been told none of these things about Iraq. Why should we marshal the world and our military to combat the latter and not the former? I would argue that any threat that diverts our attention from annihilating al Qaeda must pose an equal or greater risk to our country. We have not been shown or even told that Iraq meets this standard.
- posted by levinson @ 9/13/2002 09:45:00 AM

 
Budgets Houston-Style
It occurs to me now what happened in 2001. The government decided to use the projections to make a contract with the American people. The government said in this contract that it would keep taxing us at the same rate over the next ten years. As a result of said contract we were left with a huge surplus. The government then booked the 2011 profits of the contract in 2001. It now needed to deal with the profits it had booked. Thus it decided to phase in increasingly large tax cuts over the next ten years to keep the 2011 profits it had booked in check. An interesting way of accounting. Where have I read about book profits over the life of a contract immediately?
- posted by levinson @ 9/12/2002 09:16:00 AM

 
Our Own Nero
How did our budget come so undone in a scant 18 months? Where on earth could our legislators have gotten the idea that we should get rid of those nasty surplusses? Read now the gospel of Greenspan as told Januray 25, 2001 before the Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate.

In doing so, I want to emphasize that I speak for myself and not necessarily for the Federal Reserve.

Not necessarily for the Fed, but this will still be filed under "Testimony of the Chairman."

To be sure, these impressive upward revisions to the growth of structural productivity and economic potential are based on inferences drawn from economic relationships that are different from anything we have considered in recent decades. The resulting budget projections, therefore, are necessarily subject to a relatively wide range of error.

We have these new projections which might be very far off since they are, as I said, projections.

The most recent projections from the OMB indicate that, if current policies remain in place, the total unified surplus will reach $800 billion in fiscal year 2011, including an on-budget surplus of $500 billion.

"Current policies." That means taxes. See, in Greenspan's personal view, the government had too much money. By 2011, under those tax rates, we'd have a budget surplus of $800 billion. That's too much, especially since:

Moreover, the admittedly quite uncertain long-term budget exercises released by the CBO last October maintain an implicit on-budget surplus under baseline assumptions well past 2030 despite the budgetary pressures from the aging of the baby-boom generation, especially on the major health programs.

All projections are volatile and uncertain, but if we keep taxing the way we are, by 2030 we're going to keep having these damned surpluses.

The most recent projections, granted their tentativeness, nonetheless make clear that the highly desirable goal of paying off the federal debt is in reach before the end of the decade.

Read that carefully because it's truly a masterpiece of deception. The most recent projections (which are, "necessarily subject to a relatively wide range of error") "make clear" (wait a minute, how can they be clear if they're subject to a "wide range of error?") that we'll pay off the debt before the end of the decade. Greenspan feels this is bad because he doesn't think the government should buy private assets. Here's a man saying that in 2001 we should cut taxes, because if we don't do it now, we'll never do it, and then we'll have this huge surplus that we can't get rid of (we can only get rid of it now) and the government will have to buy private assets.

Short of an extraordinarily rapid and highly undesirable short-term dissipation of unified surpluses or a transferring of assets to individual privatized accounts, it appears difficult to avoid at least some accumulation of private assets by the government.

One side note, it has been declared that the recession we currently find ourselves in started in March of 2001. Keep in mind Greenspan made the above comment 60 days prior to the beginning of this recession. With the above statement, Alan comes around again on the budget issue. Here the Chairman lays it on the line for the Senators. Unless something totally unprecedented (like a recession) comes along and eats up these surplusses or [shameless political plug coming] you privatize some assets of Social Security, the government is doomed to buy private assets. When? 2011. 10 years hence. How long is the current tax package supposed to last? 10 years. HOLD ON TO YOUR HATS:

Indeed, in almost any credible baseline scenario, short of a major and prolonged economic contraction, the full benefits of debt reduction are now achieved before the end of this decade--a prospect that did not seem likely only a year or even six months ago.

Six months earlier no one could have predicted this. Indeed, predictions are, "necessarily subject to a relatively wide range of error," but don't let that stop you, we have to cut taxes NOW or in ten years we'll be up a creek! We won't be able to cut them then, because the government will be powerless then. This is the kind of bald-faced twaddle that set our budgetary policy for the next ten years.

[W]e must avoid a situation in which we come upon the level of irreducible debt so abruptly that the only alternative to the accumulation of private assets would be a sharp reduction in taxes and/or an increase in expenditures, because these actions might occur at a time when sizable economic stimulus would be inappropriate.

You know how time flies. 2011 will be upon us like that and since our current projections (which could not have been anticipated 6 months ago) show us that in 2011 we'll have waaaayyy too much money, we'd better plan to get rid of it now. Were we to cut taxes in the future to get those terrible surplusses down, we might overstimulate the economy, and that might lead to some kind of irrational exuberance. That would be bad.

Lately there has been much discussion of cutting taxes to confront the evident pronounced weakening in recent economic performance.

The economy is going down the toilet, but I've got these projections that show we'll be on easy street for the next decade.

In today's context, where tax reduction appears required in any event over the next several years to assist in forestalling the accumulation of private assets, starting that process sooner rather than later likely would help smooth the transition to longer-term fiscal balance.

Cut 'em now, or else you're screwed and I won't be here to help you.

Greenspan then ties himself in knots both warning against cutting taxes and adovcating the same cuts. To me, the best illustration of this comes in the 5th paragraph from the end:

To be sure, unless later sources do reveal major changes in tax liability determination, receipts should be reasonably well-maintained in the near term, as the effects of earlier gains in asset values continue to feed through with a lag into tax liabilities. But the longer-run effects of movements in asset values are much more difficult to assess, and those uncertainties would intensify should equity prices remain significantly off their peaks. Of course, the uncertainties in the receipts outlook do seem less troubling in view of the cushion provided by the recent sizable upward revisions to the ten-year surplus projections. But the risk of adverse movements in receipts is still real, and the probability of dropping back into deficit as a consequence of imprudent fiscal policies is not negligible.

Stick and move, stick and move. Stocks are down and that could mean bad things for these surplusses, but we'll be okay thanks to our handy-dandy projections. Greenspan then leaves us with this comment:

We need to resist those policies that could readily resurrect the deficits of the past and the fiscal imbalances that followed in their wake.

Well Chairman, what are those policies? You just advocated setting a tax cut package for the next ten years because we have these great projections, which you say are worthless but we should follow them anyway. What to make of this last statement? Perhaps, ass covering? In case he's wrong, he can say he told us to be more prudent. Never mind the long dissertations about cutting taxes now to avoid needlessly stimulating the economy in ten years time, or the oration concerning privatizing social security accounts, cut taxes, but not too much, and make sure you cautiously determine what to do for the next ten years of budgets right now.

A virtuoso performance from the Maestro. Today he reminds us to strap our discipline back on. Thanks buddy. A final note. My outrage is not over our current predicament. We've got some budget issues now due to an economic implosion. Our deficit is not so outsized that it cannot be reigned in and lead to surplusses when the economy sorts itself out. The problem is that the 10-year tax cut passed last year takes the advice of the Chairman and phases in over ten years. That means that even if we tighten our belts now to deal with the recession, we're going to be taking in less and less money as the years go by. All this based on one set of projections that are proving to be a startling anomoly. The deceptive testimony of the Chairman should be a guiding lesson to legislators.
- posted by levinson @ 9/12/2002 09:05:00 AM

 
Curtain Call
In the latest attempt at putting the cat back in the bag, Alan Greenspan tells lawmakers to get their spending under control. Of course, this is the same man who knowingly unleashed an orgy of spending and tax cuts in 2001 (speaking for himself and not the Fed before Congress) when he felt we had so much money that we ought not pay down the debt too quickly. While plenty of blame can be spread around for our current financial mess, one solitary finger can rest its gaze squarely on Chairman Greenspan as a preeminent architect of the return to deficit spending.


- posted by levinson @ 9/12/2002 08:02:00 AM

 
Following Conason's link to the Schama essay. Fantastic. Even when he reiterates the known provenance of the administration flaks so often seen in the papers today, it serves as the underhand lob needed to crush their mediocrity out of the park. Conason quoted the end of the article:

Never have the ordinary people of America, the decent, working stiffs whose bodies lay in the hecatomb of Ground Zero, needed and deserved a great tribune more urgently. The greatest honour we could do them is to take back the voice of democracy from the plutocrats. So it is altogether too bad that this Wednesday, Mayor Bloomberg and Gov. Pataki, both liberal Republicans, both decent enough men, shrinking from the challenge to articulate such a debate, have decided instead to read from the Declaration of Independence, the Gettysburg Address and Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms speech. Those words - often sublime - derived their power from the urgency of the moment. To reiterate them merely to produce a moment of dependable veneration, is to short-change both history and the present� Starting in New York, starting now, we need to do what the people of this astoundingly irrepressible city do best: stand up and make a hell of a noise.

Tremendous. I prefer Schama's reflection on last fall from the same essay:

Others bore the unmistakeable marks of helpless, uncomprehending sorrow: red-rimmed eyes; cheeks pale with distraction, or bearing layers of repeatedly and hopelessly applied make-up. During the service, heads would suddenly bow as if bent with unsupportable feeling. At no point in particular, shoulders gently shook. An arm would reach round to do what it could. Body language was everything that day and that week. Words had never seemed so redundant; so incapable of carrying the weight of trauma. Explicitly acknowledging this, knowing that simply showing up counted for more than any eloquence, the prime minister kept it brief. A gaping, blackened ground zero had opened inside every New Yorker (and everyone who had, through the catastrophe, become a New Yorker) and at the smoking core of the misery were, instead of words, images: spools of them, the ones you all know, looping mercilessly. The implausible glide into the steel; the blooming flower of flame; the slow, imploding crumple; the rolling tsunami of dust and shredded paperwork; the terrible drop of bodies, falling with heartbreaking grace like hunted birds.

The mark-ups are mine, highlighting my favorite parts of my favorite sections.

I am grateful for such superb writing.
- posted by levinson @ 9/11/2002 10:35:00 AM

 
blogging at its best
Each blog has its own theme and style. Joe Conason's Journal today is at its best.
- posted by levinson @ 9/11/2002 10:24:00 AM

 
Greetings Professor Falken
Upon hearing the news yesterday that we're now on Orange alert, I couldn't help but feel I was in the war room of the movie "War Games." Also, it seems all too in keeping with the administration's M.O. to issue a higher state of alert (after months of nothing) the day before the anniversary of September 11. I'm expecting Tom Ridge to introduce the newest piece of intelligence gathering IT:


- posted by levinson @ 9/11/2002 08:17:00 AM

 
Talk of the Town
This week's Talk in the New Yorker is among the finest collections of writing I've seen in a magazine. The personal accounts from three widows is moving beyond words. Go out and buy it, or order it if you miss it. Truly not to be missed.
- posted by levinson @ 9/11/2002 08:05:00 AM

 
Basking in the Glow
Watching the Pats game last night, and seeing Bush I and Koizumi in the owners box has me wondering what business Kraft is drumming up with the Carlyle Group. Remarking on the presence of the two dignitaries to Jess led to this exchange:

me: Hey, Kraft has Bush I and the Japanese P.M. in his box.
Jess: [not turning her head for an instant] Did he puke on him?

Right up there with the "Why won't you die?" episode which will be related at a later date.
- posted by levinson @ 9/10/2002 01:01:00 PM

 
Look Out Mr. Koizumi!
How big have the New England Patriots become? Well last night in the owner's box of Gillette Stadium, as the Patriots dismantled the Steelers for the second time in a row, owner Bob Kraft hosted two international dignitaries. Former President Bush and Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi. Good to see the governments of the world are ahead of the Vegas odds makers.


- posted by levinson @ 9/10/2002 07:54:00 AM

 
Get the lipstick
I like a fiesty reviewer. I like the ones that get me inspired or defensive or outraged or leave me laughing. The best is some combination of the four. Such writers are fun and seem lacking to my eye. Recently the top review I have read comes from the New Yorker. The magazine reviewed "Spider-Man" earlier this summer and reading said review the day after seeing the movie left me nearly in tears. This week's New Republic features a review of the proposals released earlier this summer on what to do with ground zero in Manhattan. The much-maligned proposals have been tabled, but I had yet to find a review that gave voice to my feelings. Though it's not yet online, I'll provide this snippet:

The fault lies not with the hapless architects who were asked to dress up this pig of a project, but with the clients themselves, most notably the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. ... What is truly scandalous, then, in light of the supposedly transformed country in which we have been living since September 11, is how brazenly greedy the Port Authority has been in insisting that it wring every dollar out of the rebuilding. This is nothing other than war profiteering. In an abject age in which cash-and-carry commercialism disfigures almost every aspect of our public life, this shameful grab proves that even at the mouth of hell the buck still rules.

- posted by levinson @ 9/06/2002 10:26:00 AM

 
Regulation
I've been meaning to do something longer about regulation that weaves together the various prevailing theories over the last 60 (count 'em) 60 years starting from the New Deal. Such and impetous comes from reading Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead. Ms. Rand's philosophy "objectivism" is the guiding philosophy of one Alan Greenspan and is what, I think, led to his shameful endorsement of the large tax cut in 2001. More on all of that later, but I wanted to put this quote out there because I think it should be the founding principle of a new era of government regulation:

"It does not follow from the fact that regulations are imperfect that unregulated markets are perfect. The fact is, all human constructs, including markets, are imperfect in one way or another; perfection is beyond our reach. That is where fundamentalist beliefs, including market fundamentalism, are always wrong: They lay claim to ultimate truth."

- posted by levinson @ 9/05/2002 01:45:00 PM