A Global Warming Tipping Point?

I'm having a little trouble reconciling two recent stories about global warming. First, we have this story about the melting ice cap:

Arctic sea ice drops to 2nd lowest recorded level

Scientists warn that a global warming 'tipping point' is taking place

WASHINGTON - More ominous signs have scientists saying that a global warming "tipping point" in the Arctic seems to be happening before their eyes: Sea ice in the Arctic Ocean is at its second lowest level in about 30 years.

The U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center reported Wednesday that sea ice in the Arctic now covers about 2.03 million square miles. The lowest point since satellite measurements began in 1979 was 1.65 million square miles set last September.

With about three weeks left in the Arctic summer, this year could wind up breaking that previous record, scientists said.

Arctic ice always melts in summer and refreezes in winter. But over the years, more of the ice is being lost to the sea with less of it recovered in winter. While ice reflects the sun's heat, the open ocean absorbs more heat and the melting accelerates warming in other parts of the world.

Sea ice also serves as primary habitat for threatened polar bears.

"We could very well be in that quick slide downward in terms of passing a tipping point," said senior scientist Mark Serreze at the data center. "It's tipping now. We're seeing it happen now."
...
Within "five to less than 10 years," the Arctic could be free of sea ice in the summer, said NASA ice scientist Jay Zwally.

"It also means that climate warming is also coming larger and faster than the models are predicting and nobody's really taken into account that change yet," he said.

Five climate scientists, four of them specialists on the Arctic, told The Associated Press that it is fair to call what is happening in the Arctic a "tipping point." NASA scientist James Hansen, who sounded the alarm about global warming 20 years ago before Congress, said the sea ice melt "is the best current example" of that.

OK, it's a tipping point. Global warming is out of control, and the polar ice cap is just melting away.

There there was this story:

Thursday, 21 August 2008

World heading towards cooler 2008

This year appears set to be the coolest globally this century.

Data from the UK Met Office shows that temperatures in the first half of the year have been more than 0.1 Celsius cooler than any year since 2000.

The principal reason is La Nina, part of the natural cycle that also includes El Nino, which cools the globe.

If 2008 is not an especially warm year, why is 2008 the year that the ice cap may melt away to record low levels?

I grabbed some temperature data here to investigate this matter for myself. This table gives "GLOBAL Land-Ocean Temperature Index in .01 C" since 1951. I'm not 100% sure that this is the right set of numbers, but I believe that these numbers come from James Hansen's operation, which means that they are especially unlikely to be biased against the global warming "tipping point" theory. For the years 1981 to 2008, I averaged temperature anomalies for the period January through July, and here is what the numbers show:


If anything, 2008 has been a cool year (so far). That being the case, why is the ice melting at such an alarming rate? Perhaps the temperature for July alone has been really high. Let's take a look at that:


Nope, that's not it. There have been lots of months with a July temperature this high. Thus, over the last two years, the ice has been melting more than ever, but the last two years have not seen especially high global temperatures compared to earlier years. As such, the idea that we've reached a tipping point does not seem terribly compelling to me. Perhaps the month of August has suddenly spiraled to record levels. I guess I'll just have to wait and see. If not, then (once again) wind patterns may be the culprit.

Barack Obama has News for John McCain

For a while, McCain's slogan was "America First," which seemed to imply that Obama had a different philosophy. Perhaps in response, Obama said this in his speech last night:

The times are too serious, the stakes are too high for this same partisan playbook. So let us agree that patriotism has no party. I love this country, and so do you, and so does John McCain. The men and women who serve in our battlefields may be Democrats and Republicans and Independents, but they have fought together and bled together and some died together under the same proud flag. They have not served a Red America or a Blue America - they have served the United States of America.

So I've got news for you, John McCain. We all put our country first.

Well, we don't all put our country first, do we? I mean, isn't fair to say that Obama's pastor of 20 years may not do that?


And isn't it fair to suggest that Obama's associate, William Ayers, doesn't always do that?


Let's be clear about this. Obama is certainly not guilty by association. That is, he does not damn America, he is not an anti-American American terrorist, and he does put America first (except, perhaps, that he plans to always seek the European seal of approval before taking any action). The fact that he comfortably associates with people who don't put America first means nothing more than this:


In 2007, these National Journal rankings show that Obama had the most liberal voting record in the Senate. That is, Barack Obama is on the far left end of the normal range of the political spectrum in America. But he is not a fringe leftist, like Ayers and Wright are. He is just closer to them, politically speaking, than a centrist or a conservative is. And the more to the left you lean, the less you are bothered by anti-Americanism (because you partially resonate to certain aspects of the anti-American message). That's all. Similarly, anti-American Europeans are more like Obama than Ayers and Wright. They lean far to the left, and they, too, would probably be less bothered by (and more willing to associate with) the likes of Bill Ayers and Reverend Wright than your Average American. Becasue they lean so far to the left, Europeans adore Barack Obama. Why wouldn't they?

If you are on the left, you probably think that it is exceedingly unfair of me to discuss the anti-American views of Obama's associates. But I don't know why. I feel sure that you'd hold it against John McCain if he had worked closely with (or had long sought spiritual guidance from) an unrepentant abortion clinic bomber. I'd hold it against him, too. I'd take it as a sign that McCain, while not an anti-abortion terrorist himself, is nevertheless so extreme in his views that he is comfortable aligning himself with right-wing wackos. That is, it would be an indication that McCain leans very, very far to the right. In the same way, Obama's past associations, like the National Journal rankings, suggest that Obama leans very, very far to the left.

Related to this, Obama also had this to say in his speech:

But the record's clear: John McCain has voted with George Bush ninety percent of the time. Senator McCain likes to talk about judgment, but really, what does it say about your judgment when you think George Bush has been right more than ninety percent of the time? I don't know about you, but I'm not ready to take a ten percent chance on change.

Well, a McCain victory would be a 10% move in the liberal direction (not in the conservative direction). According to the National Journal, Obama voted the liberal way 65 out of 66 times in 2007, which is why he earned the title of being the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate (with Biden coming in 3rd). Thus, our choice for president is between John McCain, who will move away from Bush by about 10% in the liberal direction, or Barack Obama, who will move us 98% in the liberal direction.

That's your choice America; take your pick.

The "Weak" Dollar = a Strong Economy

People instinctively believe that a weak dollar is a sign of economic trouble and that a strong dollar is a sign of a robust economy (and is something to be proud of). This, I believe, is a case of language bewitching the intelligence. If we did not use the terms "weak" and "strong" but instead used the terms "export favoring" and "import favoring," people would be less hysterical about this issue. There is no correct value for the dollar relative to the other currencies of the world. Moreover, the fact that the dollar has fallen a lot relative to the euro over the last 5 years or so says nothing (repeat: NOTHING) about the strength of the US economy relative to the economies of Europe. By any measure, the US economy has outperformed the economies of Europe for the better part of 15 years (including the Bush years), yet the value of the dollar has fallen anyway. And it has fallen by a lot. Has it been an economic disaster for our economy? Here is how things are going today:

Durable-goods orders rise surprising 1.3% in July

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- Signaling that some businesses have still been spending despite tight credit and a slow economy, the Commerce Department reported Wednesday that new orders for U.S.-made durable goods surged in July, rising 1.3%.

Strong transportation equipment demand boosted the result, Commerce reported. Economists surveyed by MarketWatch had been looking for a gain of 0.2%.

Excluding transportation goods, July's new orders rose 0.7%.

Durable goods are big-ticket items designed to last three years or more. As such, new orders are very sensitive to economic expectations and serve as useful leading indicators of growth.

Ian Shepherdson, chief U.S. economist at High Frequency Economics, wrote that companies benefiting from the export boom are likely behind the increase in capital spending.

"The risk must be that in time the combination of slowing global growth and a stronger dollar crimps exports, but for now they are the lifeline," Shepherdson wrote.

New orders for durable goods in June were revised to an increase of 1.3% from a prior estimate of 0.8% growth.

That's what happened in the month that just ended. In the quarter before that -- back when you were 100% sure that the economy had plunged into the next great depression -- economic growth was, in fact, even more robust than was thought at the time:

Economy shifted to higher gear in the spring

GDP revision shows economy growing at fastest pace in nearly year

WASHINGTON - The economy shifted to a higher gear in the spring, growing at its fastest pace in nearly a year as foreign buyers snapped up U.S. exports and tax rebates spurred shoppers at home.

The Commerce Department reported Thursday that gross domestic product, or GDP, increased at a 3.3 percent annual rate in the April-June quarter. The revised reading was much better than the government’s initial estimate of a 1.9 percent pace and exceeded economists’ expectations for a 2.7 percent growth rate.

Oh sure. Economists were expecting growth of 2.7%. Here is what they were expecting before we knew what the numbers would actually look like:

April. 30, 2008

Many analysts were predicting that the gross domestic product (GDP) would weaken a bit more — to a pace of just 0.5 percent — in the first quarter. Earlier this year, some thought the economy would actually lurch into reverse during the opening quarter. Now, they say they believe that will likely happen during the current April-to-June period.
...
A growing number of economists believe the economy is in a recession and is indeed contracting now.

I might add that, in addition to the growing number of economists who believed that the economy was in a recession, you believed it as well (I would guess). That's because you think that economists can predict the future, but I know better. When the data show that the economy is in a recession, then I'll strongly endorse the idea that the economy is in a recession. Until that time, I'll base my opinion of the facts instead of on the relentlessly negative predictions of economists.

Back to today's strong GDP report. Why was growth so strong despite the "weak" dollar? Actually, it was strong precisely because of the weak (i.e., export-favoring) dollar:

The biggest factor in the second-quarter’s rebound was robust sales of U.S. exports to other countries. The weaker value of the U.S. dollar has bolstered those sales. Exports grew at a 13.2 percent pace in the spring. That was much stronger than the government’s initial estimate of a 9.2 percent growth rate, and more than double the 5.1 percent growth rate logged in the first quarter.

Not only is economic growth strong, the export-favoring dollar is helping to address the one economic statistic for America that seems far out of whack with the rest of the world. Contrary to what you think (because you let the mainstream media do your thinking for you), the U.S. budget deficit is not "huge." Instead, it is pretty typical once its value is adjusted for GDP. It is typical in relation to the other nations of the G7, and it is typical in relation to the last 40 years of the deficits we've had in this country. By contrast, the current account deficit (i.e., the trade deficit) has been huge and has been much larger than the trade deficits of other nations. Slowly but surely, the U.S. trade deficit is coming down (now that the value of the dollar is export favoring).

Feel free to freak out about the "weak dollar, but if inflation remains under control, I'm not going to join you.

The New Census Bureau Report on Incomes in America

The Census Bureau just released new income, poverty and health insurance statistics. First, the income figures:


This shows household incomes just now getting back to their 2000 levels. However, it is important to note that these are pre-tax figures, they are based on the respondent's memory, and they do not take into account all forms of income. As I indicated yesterday, it is also important to consider after-tax income in light of the fact that Bush pushed through several tax cuts early in his term (first in 2001 and then again in 2003). When you include all forms of income and examine how much households have left after paying taxes, you get this:


My only point is that this chart should always be included in any discussion about incomes in America. It is worth knowing that after-tax incomes, which is what most people care about, surpassed 2000 levels a while ago (way back in 2001, in fact). Actually, when you include all forms of income, even pre-tax income exceeded 2000 levels a few years ago:


So, even if you are interested in emphasizing pre-tax income for some reason, it is clear that the median value surpassed the level obtained in the year 2000 a while ago (in 2001, but more convincingly in 2004). This fact can be easily obscured if you use sources of data that do not include all forms of income (like the Census Bureau).

With regard to poverty and health insurance statistics, it is always helpful to look at the numbers over time. Reporters rarely do that, perhaps because they like to induce as much anti-Bush rage as they possibly can. For example, how many times have you heard it said that, under the Bush administration, 40 million people have been without health insurance? Here are the relevant charts:



When you look at the figures over time, you can see that about 15% of the population has been without health insurance since the early 1990s. Of course, if the percentage of uninsured remains constant, the number of uninsured will increase as the population increases, which is why Democrats like to focus on the number (not the percentage). Same goes for poverty. This misleading gimmick is just like the one that reporters and Democrats use when they focus on the absolute size of the budget deficit instead of considering the budget deficit in relation to GDP (which is the only sensible way to do it). As the economy gets larger, the absolute size of the budget deficit will increase even if it remains a constant percentage of GDP. When you look at the numbers over time, and when you focus on the relative figures (rather than the absolute figures), it brings some much-needed perspective to the table.

A (Slightly Misleading) Report on Incomes in America from the New York Times

The New York Times has another story on incomes in America and, as always, misses the mark:

Average U.S. Income Showed First Rise Over 2000

Americans enjoyed higher average income in 2006 for the first time since 2000, when the last economic expansion ended, the latest tax data show.

Adjusted gross income reported on tax returns in 2006 averaged $58,029. In 2006 dollars that was an increase of $739, or 1.2 percent, from the $57,289 average in 2000, analysis of Internal Revenue Service data showed.
...
The average wage in 2006 was $46,996, down $101, or a fraction of 1 percent, from $47,097 in 2000. Average wages in this decade hit a low of $45,956 in 2003, the I.R.S. data show.

Here is a graphic that accompanied the story:


The story is incomplete (and somewhat misleading) mainly because the reporter chooses to analyze the wrong set of data. The data used for the story come from the Internal Revenue Service. The problem with using those numbers is that you can only compute averages, whereas what you want are medians. When the rich hit a rough patch, as they did when the dot-com bubble burst, the use of average income values creates the impression that incomes for most went down. When the market recovers, rapidly increasing incomes for the rich make it seem as though everyone is doing much better than they really are.

The story in the New York Times is sensitive to this issue and tries to get around it by presenting average wage data. But average wage numbers tell only part of the story. To see how people are doing overall, all sources of income need to be included, but this is not the case for the wage data. Finally, because Bush pushed through tax cuts in his early years in office, you'd like to also see after-tax income (which is what you live on), not just pre-tax income. The New York Times story presents pre-tax income only.

To get the complete story, reporters should analyze the data set provided by the Tax Policy Center (of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution), which you can find here. They include all sources of income:

Comprehensive household income equals pretax cash income plus income from other sources. Pretax cash income is the sum of wages, salaries, self-employment income, rents, taxable and nontaxable interest, dividends, realized capital gains, cash transfer payments, and retirement benefits plus taxes paid by businesses (corporate income taxes and the employer's share of Social Security, Medicare, and federal unemployment insurance payroll taxes) and employee contributions to 401(k) retirement plans. Other sources of income include all in-kind benefits (Medicare, Medicaid, employer-paid health insurance premiums, food stamps, school lunches and breakfasts, housing assistance, and energy assistance).

This, I believe, is the best source of income data available. Here is what inflation-adjusted, after-tax, median household income looks like since the year 2000:


That is, the 2005 level is already almost 6% higher than the 2000 level. When the 2006 numbers are presented (which is what the New York Times story is about), incomes will be even higher than that.

The same source of information shows that median pre-tax household income has remained flat since 2000. That's worth knowing. My point is just that a complete picture of how Americans are actually doing is provided by (a) taking into account all sources of income, (b) using medians, and (c) including a consideration of after-tax income. When you do that, the picture brightens a bit. But whether it brightens or not, that's how income data ought to be analyzed, in my humble opinion.

On Foreign Policy, Biden is Better than Obama

Jim Geraghty has collected a number of quotations from Joe Biden that bear on the long-settled question of whether or not Bush lied to the American people about Saddam Hussein's WMD program and whether or not Saddam Hussein posed a threat despite his not yet having amassed WMDs after all.

Comments made before the invasion (or about what was known before the invasion):

Biden on Meet the Press in 2002, discussing Saddam Hussein: “He’s a long term threat and a short term threat to our national security… “We have no choice but to eliminate the threat. This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world.”

Biden on Meet the Press in 2002: “Saddam must be dislodged from his weapons or dislodged from power.”

Biden in October of 2002: “We must be clear with the American people that we are committing to Iraq for the long haul; not just the day after, but the decade after.”

Biden on Meet the Press in 2007, on Hussein’s WMDs: “Well, the point is, it turned out they didn’t, but everyone in the world thought he had them. The weapons inspectors said he had them. He catalogued — they catalogued them. This was not some, some Cheney, you know, pipe dream. This was, in fact, catalogued.”

Biden on Meet the Press, April 29, 2007: “The threat [Saddam Hussein] presented was that, if Saddam was left unfettered, which I said during that period, for the next five years with sanctions lifted and billions of dollars into his coffers, then I believed he had the ability to acquire a tactical nuclear weapon — not by building it, by purchasing it. I also believed he was a threat in that he was — every single solitary U.N. resolution which he agreed to abide by, which was the equivalent of a peace agreement at the United Nations, after he got out of — after we kicked him out of Kuwait, he was violating. Now, the rules of the road either mean something or they don’t. The international community says “We’re going to enforce the sanctions we placed” or not. And what was the international community doing? The international community was weakening. They were pulling away.”

Comments made during the war, but before the American public began to think that our efforts in Iraq had failed:

Biden to the Brookings Institution in 2005: “We can call it quits and withdraw from Iraq. I think that would be a gigantic mistake. Or we can set a deadline for pulling out, which I fear will only encourage our enemies to wait us out — equally a mistake.”

Comments made after it became politically expedient to oppose Bush's efforts in Iraq:

On Meet the Press, January 7, 2007, assessing the proposal of a surge of troops to Iraq: “If he surges another 20, 30, or whatever number he’s going to, into Baghdad, it’ll be a tragic mistake, in my view, but, as a practical matter, there’s no way to say, ‘Mr. President, stop.’”

Analyzing the surge on Meet the Press, September 9, 2007: “I mean, the truth of the matter is that, that the — America’s — this administration’s policy and the surge are a failure, and that the surge, which was supposed to stop sectarian violence and — long enough to give political reconciliation, there’s been no political reconciliation... The reality is that, although there has been some mild progress on the security front, there is, in fact, no, no real security in Baghdad and/or in Anbar province, where I was, dealing with the most serious problem, sectarian violence. Sectarian violence is as strong and as solid and as serious a problem as it was before the surge started.”

So, unlike the young and inexperienced liberal "rock star" at the top of the ticket, Biden -- who supposedly brings foreign-policy gravitas to the ticket -- saw things in much the same way that Bush (and every other reasonable analyst) saw things. He only veered to the left (opposing the now smashingly successful troop surge) when the political gains for the Democrats became so great that it trumped any consideration of the gains that would accrue to America by seeing our effort through to completion. Even then, he simply opposed the troop surge but did not embrace a precipitous withdrawal that would have undoubtedly resulted in what the editors of the New York Times were only too happy to watch unfold before the horrified eyes of the world:

Whatever his cause was, it is lost...When Congress returns this week, extricating American troops from the war should be at the top of its agenda...Americans must be clear that Iraq, and the region around it, could be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave. There could be reprisals against those who worked with American forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide. Potentially destabilizing refugee flows could hit Jordan and Syria. Iran and Turkey could be tempted to make power grabs. Perhaps most important, the invasion has created a new stronghold from which terrorist activity could proliferate. (July 8, 2007)

This is what Obama's Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007 would have achieved. By contrast, Biden's Iraq War Policy Resolution act (which, like Obama's bill, was introduced in January of 2007 -- at the height of sectarian violence in Iraq) would have blocked the surge of troops but would not have required a genocide-inducing withdrawal. So, I guess you could say that because of his extensive foreign policy experience, Biden does have better judgment than Barack Obama. In fact, had he supported the surge, Biden's foreign policy judgment would almost rival that of John McCain.

National Journal's 2007 Vote Ratings

Remember those ratings from the National Journal that caused such a buzz because Barack Obama was listed as the most liberal member of the senate? Now that Biden is Obama's choice for VP, you may wonder where he falls on that scale. Here are the top 10 liberal senators based on their 2007 voting records:


I guess the only question here is why Obama did not select Sheldon Whitehouse to be his running mate.

Obama's VP Choice Brings a Collective Sigh of Relief

From conservatives, that is. Had Obama chosen Hillary Clinton, not many on the right would be celebrating today. I know I wouldn't be. Unlike many, I do not fear a Clinton presidency, but an Obama presidency is pretty worrisome, and Hillary's presence on the ticket would have made an Obama presidency much more likely. The fact that Obama chose Biden instead almost seems to suggest that he doesn't want the job this time around.

Even the AP seems less than ecstatic over this choice:

Analysis: Biden pick shows lack of confidence

By RON FOURNIER, Associated Press Writer
Sat Aug 23, 5:02 AM ET

DENVER - The candidate of change went with the status quo.

In picking Sen. Joe Biden to be his running mate, Barack Obama sought to shore up his weakness — inexperience in office and on foreign policy — rather than underscore his strength as a new-generation candidate defying political conventions.
...
The picks say something profound about Obama: For all his self-confidence, the 47-year-old Illinois senator worried that he couldn't beat Republican John McCain without help from a seasoned politician willing to attack. The Biden selection is the next logistical step in an Obama campaign that has become more negative — a strategic decision that may be necessary but threatens to run counter to his image.
...
So the question is whether Biden's depth counters Obama's inexperience — or highlights it?

It obviously highlights it. A Biden/Obama ticket might make sense, but to have the knowledgeable and experienced fellow at the bottom of the ticket seems upside down. Here is another AP "analysis" that can't be described as wildly enthusiastic about Obama's choice:

Analysis: Is Obama ready for world's toughest job?

By CHRISTOPHER WILLS, Associated Press Writer
Sat Aug 23, 4:14 AM ET

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. - Americans picking a president usually turn to people who have run states or armies. The biggest thing Barack Obama has ever run is his own presidential campaign.

The 47-year-old Illinois senator is asking voters to look beyond his thin resume and conclude that he has the wisdom and toughness to be president. The economy, terrorism, health care — he hopes voters will trust him with all that and more.

That's a lot to ask for someone who just a few years ago was an obscure member of the Illinois Legislature.
...
Emergencies aren't the only challenges for a new president. Obama would also face the unfamiliar task of overseeing a massive bureaucracy.

Obama plans to address that by filling his Cabinet with Washington experts — perhaps including Republicans. On Saturday he named Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware as his vice presidential running mate, balancing his ticket with a seasoned Washington veteran well-versed in foreign policy and defense issues.

One AP reporter was more impressed, but wild enthusiasm was still hard to detect:

Biden speaks — and speaks — his own mind

By CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press Writer
Sat Aug 23, 4:54 AM ET

WASHINGTON - Barack Obama told everyone he wanted a running mate who will challenge his thinking, and now he's got one. Joe Biden's tendency to speak his own mind — and speak and speak — is entwined in his DNA.

The loquacious Delaware senator brings more than verbiage to Obama's side. Biden is a foreign policy heavyweight with a decade longer in the Senate than the seasoned Republican presidential candidate, John McCain. That's almost three more decades of experience than his new boss.

Speaking of Biden speaking his mind, Politico elaborates:

A statesman known for slips of his tongue

Eamon Javers, Jonathan Martin
Sat Aug 23, 2:44 AM ET

Forget the idea that opposition researchers got cracking the very moment that Sen. Barack Obama announced Delaware Senator Joe Biden as his running mate—they’ve long been poring over his records and background, and those of all the most likely vice-presidential picks.

For all that, though, the likeliest attacks in Biden are all matters of public record, and often problems of his own making.

Biden, who dropped out of the 1988 Democratic primary after he was accused of lifting sections of his stump speech about his humble origins from British Labour party leader Neil Kinnock, more recently took heat in 2006, when he said, “You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.”

This year, he managed to blow up his official announcement he was entering the race when he deemed Obama “the first mainstream African American [candidate] who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”

Reporters and opposition researchers are already salivating at the verbal grenades yet to be launched.
...
While preparing for his own run at the party’s nomination last year, he took several shots at Obama’s inexperience, warning that “If the Democrats think we’re going to be able to nominate someone who can win without that person being able to table unimpeachable credentials on national security and foreign policy, I think we’re making a tragic mistake.”

When Obama gave a speech saying he’d send troops into Pakistan if he had actionable intelligence and the Pakistani government was unwilling to act, Biden told NPR that “It’s a well-intentioned notion he has, but it’s a very naïve way of thinking how you’re going to conduct foreign policy,” adding of his then-rival, in a remark Republicans are sure to revive, “Having talking points on foreign policy doesn’t get you there.”

Biden also said last year of his now running mate, that “I think he can be ready, but right now I don’t believe he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training.” He may also see clips from his 1988 presidential run, when he ran an ad in which the narrator warns:

”The White House isn't a place to learn how to deal with international crisis, the balance of power... the economic future of the next generation,'' the narrator of Biden's 1988 ad for the Democratic nomination said. "The president has got to know the territory.”
...
Another moment likely to be re-used against him is his August 2, 2005 Daily Show appearance where Jon Stewart asked him of a potential 2008 run, “You may end up going against a Senate colleague, perhaps McCain, perhaps Frist?”

Biden replied, “John McCain is a personal friend, a great friend, and I would be honored to run with or against John McCain, because I think the country would be better off — be well off no matter who...”

Well, Politico got that right:

McCain Rolls Out New Ad With Biden’s Words

Just three hours after the Obama campaign sent out its text announcement, the McCain campaign rolled out its first ad this morning, using Senator Joe Biden’s own words during the primary season about Senator Barack Obama.

From a debate in 2007, a clip shows Mr. Biden standing next to Mr. Obama. George Stephanopoulos of ABC News queried Mr. Biden: “You were asked, “Is he ready?” You said, ‘I think he can be ready but right now, I don’t believe he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training.’”

Mr. Biden: “I think that I stand by the statement.”

In addition, the McCain ad uses footage from another TV appearance, where Mr. Biden said, “I would be honored to run with or against John McCain, because I think the country would be better off.”

Barack Needs Hillary

The bloom is clearly off the rose, and Barack Obama needs a game-changer now. Hillary Clinton would do it, so that's my prediction for his VP pick.

Hillary Clinton and the Chicago Annenberg Challenge

By now, everyone knows about this story:

Chicago Annenberg Challenge Shutdown?

A cover-up in the making?

By Stanley Kurtz
...
Although the press has been notably lax about pursuing the matter, the full story of the Obama-Ayers relationship calls the truth of Obama’s account seriously into question. When Obama made his first run for political office, articles in both the Chicago Defender and the Hyde Park Herald featured among his qualifications his position as chairman of the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a foundation where Ayers was a founder and guiding force.
...
This much we know from the public record, but a large cache of documents housed in the Richard J. Daley Library at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), is likely to flesh out the story.
...
Unfortunately, I don’t yet have access to the documents. The Special Collections section of the Richard J. Daley Library agreed to let me read them, but just before I boarded my flight to Chicago, the top library officials mysteriously intervened to bar access. Circumstances strongly suggest the likelihood that Bill Ayers himself may have played a pivotal role in this denial.

All of this reminds me of a point that Hillary Clinton was trying to make back during the primaries. Consider, for example, this transcript from Meet the Press back on December 30, 2007:

MR. RUSSERT: Hillary Clinton gave an interview to the Iowa press where she talked about her own experience and what she had gone through, and her words were interesting. I want to play those and come back and talk about them. Here she is.

(Videotape)

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON (D-NY): (December 14, 2007) I've been tested, I've been vetted, I have been in the, you know, political arena in our country very intensely for 16 years. There are no, there are no surprises. There are not going to be, you know, anybody saying, "Well, why didn't we think about" or what--"My goodness, what does that mean?"

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: "I've been tested, I've been vetted. There's no surprises."

SEN. OBAMA: Right.

MR. RUSSERT: We've had a Clinton official in New Hampshire resign because he began to talk about your drug use as a, a young man. A Clinton official resigned here who talked about--on the Internet about your Muslim background.

SEN. OBAMA: Right.

MR. RUSSERT: Have you been sufficiently tested and vetted? (Obama nods head) Are there any surprises? (Obama shakes head) Is there anything the American people should know?

SEN. OBAMA: There are no surprises, in part because the Clinton, the Clinton campaign has done a, I think, a thorough research job on us. If there was anything out there, I promise you, they would have found it by now, which is why they ended up resorting to some of the stuff that you're talking about. The only reason people know it is because I disclosed it. And some of it was completely false.

Hmmm. No surprises at all? Perhaps not, but if anyone ever gets to see the Chicago Annenberg Challenge papers, we'll be able test the validity of Obama's claim. Right now, Hillary must be thinking "told 'ya."

Fighting "along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border"

Democrats are fond of making a transparently invalid argument, one that the mainstream media dutifully reports as if it were a legitimate point of view. The argument is that while U.S. forces were "baby sitting a civil war" in Iraq (as Barack Obama put it), al Qaeda was growing stronger along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Therefore, our troops should be withdrawn from Iraq and sent to Afghanistan, which is the real central front in the war on terror.

As I have pointed out before, the glaring problem with this argument is that al Qaeda's center of operation is in Pakistan (near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border). Thus, sending additional troops to Afghanistan (and placing them near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border) will not address the problem at all unless those troops are planning to invade Pakistan. The Democrats have learned that they can obfuscate this issue by always referring to the "Afghanistan-Pakistan border," knowing full well that most people will not notice the critical flaw in the argument.

Sending more troops to Afghanistan to fight the Taliban is a fine idea, but you still need to say what you are going to do to confront al Qaeda in Pakistan (which is where al Qaeda is based). No one has a good solution to that problem, but the mainstream media often pretends that the Democrats do. They help to perpetuate that myth by refusing to point out that the Democratic anti-al-Qaeda action plan of sending more troops to Afghanistan leaves al Qaeda (in Pakistan) completely untouched.

In any event, it is important to pay attention to what is happening on the Pakistani side of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. In that regard, a new story caught me by surprise. What is even more surprising is the lack of attention being paid to what is happening there right now. This story from The Australian seems to be one of very few that has covered the issue in recent days:

300,000 flee as jihadis attacked

Bruce Loudon, South Asia correspondent | August 18, 2008

ISLAMABAD: A human tide of more than 300,000 civilians has fled the al-Qa'ida badlands, amid indications that the fighting there has reached unprecedented levels, with the Pakistani army using massive firepower to attack jihadi militant strongholds.

Helicopter gunships, fixed-wing strike aircraft, tanks and heavy artillery have been used in the onslaught that followed the visit last month by Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani to Washington, where he was berated for Pakistan's failure to wipe out the militants.

The offensive runs counter to perceptions that Pakistan's new civilian Government is "soft" on Islamic extremism.
...
Pakistani television showed thousands of civilians caught in the crossfire streaming out of the Bajaur, Mohmand and Kurrum agencies during the fighting estimated to have killed more than 500 militants. Tens of thousands of people are camping on the perimeter of Peshawar, the capital of the North West Frontier Province, and some have reached Rawalpindi, the garrison city adjoining Islamabad.

New security tsar Rehman Malik, the architect of the get-tough policy against the militants who have over-run the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, said at least 220,000 civilians had been displaced. But welfare agencies said the figure was probably well in excess of 300,000.
...
In a speech to the National Assembly on Saturday, Mr Gilani declared the Government was determined to re-establish control in the tribal areas bordering Afghanistan. "We will establish the writ of the Government at all costs (as) a parallel government cannot be tolerated," he said.

The offensive, launched without fanfare to avoid conveying the notion it was done at the insistence of Washington, is targeting primarily Bajaur, slated as the most likely hiding place of Osama bin Laden. Fierce fighting is also under way in areas of the NWFP where many of Pakistan's nuclear weapons are believed to be based.

Dr Malik, who accompanied Mr Gilani to Washington, estimated yesterday that a force of more than 3000 well-armed and highly trained al-Qa'ida militants were operating in Bajaur.

"We will wipe them out," Dr Malik said. "We will not surrender before them."

Fighting in the NWFP's strategic Swat Valley, 250km north of Islamabad, is at unprecedented levels.
...
Analysts said the fighting in Bajaur, Mohmand and Kurram suggested that for the first time in many months the army was on the offensive against militants.

Here is a description of these areas of Pakistan:

Pakistan is divided into four provinces largely on the basis of linguistic groups—Punjab, Sind, Baluchistan, and the North-West Frontier—as well as the Pakistani-administered portions of the Kashmir region in the northern mountains. Baluchistan is the largest province but Punjab is the most populous. Along the border with Afghanistan are the seven federally administered tribal areas of Bajaur, Mohmand, Khyber, Orakzai, Kurrum, and North and South Waziristan. These areas are basically outside direct administration by the government because they maintain their independence by direct force of arms.

And here is a map of the area:


Al Qaeda is, indeed, thriving in those dark blue/purple areas of the map (along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border" -- but inside Pakistan). Something big is happening there right now, and it seems like good news for those who are interested in winning the war on terror. Al Qaeda has been largely crushed in Iraq, they've done nothing at all in Afghanistan for the better part of 5 years, and now they appear to be under tremendous military pressure inside Pakistan.

How did Bush manage to get Pakistan to finally take such action? Is it related to Musharraf's recent departure from the scene? And why isn't this story getting more attention given its obvious significance? I don't know the answer to any of these questions.

Presidential Tracking Polls

As I have noted on countless occasions, individual polls that sample, say, 1000 adults are not very informative because the results are so heavily influenced by random error. Other polls use much larger samples, and their results are worth paying attention to. One of those is the Pew poll, which is usually based on more than 2000 respondents:



Another is the Rasmussen Presidential Tracking Poll, which is based on several thousand respondents as well. I averaged the results for each of the last three months and made up a chart similar to the one provided by Pew:



The story is virtually identical, so there seems to be no question that Obama's prior lead is slipping away. This might indicate that the more America gets to know Obama, the less impressed they are. It also probably means that McCain's efforts to portray Obama as a celebrity lightweight has paid off. McCain's strategy may also have been a preemptive strike against the upcoming Democratic National Convention, which will apparently include many Hollywood stars. The McCain commercials involving Paris Hilton and Britanny Spears may automatically replay in the minds of many Americans each time a (lightweight) Hollywood star steps up to the podium to explain why all you little people out there should vote for Barack Obama.

The Politics of News Watchers

A couple of new polls on the politics of those who watch the news on television caught me by surprise. First, there was this Pew poll about party affiliations of news watchers (based on 3615 adults polled between April 30 and June 1, 2008):



As shown at the bottom of the table, in their overall sample, 36% of respondents were Democrats, 29% were Independents, and 25% were Republicans. That being the case, you might expect about that same distribution of Democrats, Republicans and Independents to be watching a politically neutral source of news. Instead, more than the expected number of Republicans watches Fox News, and more than the expected number of Democrats watches CNN (as well as the other news sources listed here). That, in itself, is no big surprise. However, to me, the number of Democrats and Independents watching Fox News was quite a bit higher than expected.

Then there was this new poll from Ramussen Reports:

News You Watch Says a Lot About How You’ll Vote

Eighty-seven percent (87%) of Fox News viewers say they are likely to vote for John McCain, while those who watch CNN and MSNBC plan to support Barack Obama in November by more than two to one.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 65% of CNN voters plan to vote for the Democratic candidate versus 26% who intend to go for the Republican. Similarly, MSNBC watchers plan to vote for Obama over McCain 63% to 30%.

Hmm. Only 39% of those who watch Fox News are Republicans, yet 87% of those who watch Fox News intend to vote for John McCain. If all of these numbers are correct, then it suggests that the Democrats and Independents who watch Fox News come from the conservative end of those political spectrums.

Troop Withdrawal Deal

Yesterday, there was more news suggesting that a deal to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq was close at hand:

Iraq minister: US troops will pull out in three years under deal

American soldiers will withdraw from cities across Iraq next summer and all US combat troops will leave the country within three years, provided the violence remains low, under the terms of a draft agreement with the Iraqi Government.

In one of the most detailed insights yet into the content of the deal, Hoshyar Zebari, the Iraqi Foreign Minister, has also told The Times that the US military would be barred from unilaterally mounting attacks inside Iraq from next year.
...
The “time horizon” for the exit of US troops would depend upon the ability of the Iraqi police and army to maintain security gains in Iraq after a surge of US forces in 2007 helped to push violence to its lowest levels in 4½ years.

To be consistent, Barack Obama will have to strongly oppose a deal that includes terms like this. For starters, 3 years is a lot longer than the 16-month time frame that he favors. But most important is the provision that says that our forces will withdraw on schedule "provided the violence remains low" and on "the ability of the Iraqi police and army to maintain security gains." That is the longstanding position of the Bush administration, and it is McCain's longstanding position as well.

But this would be a radical departure from the longstanding Obama position. His position has always been that we should withdraw our forces independent of conditions on the ground. When sectarian violence was at its absolute peak in January of 2007, Barack Obama introduced a bill to withdraw our troops in about 13 months:

Obama Bill Sets Date For Troop Withdrawal

Candidate Goes Further Than Rivals

By Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 31, 2007; Page A04

Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, one of the most prominent Democrats in the 2008 presidential field, proposed for the first time setting a deadline for withdrawing troops from Iraq, as part of a broader plan aimed at bolstering the freshman senator's foreign policy credentials.

Obama's legislation, offered on the Senate floor last night, would remove all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008.

Now that violence has been dramatically reduced in Iraq, he continues to sound the same theme:

Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months.

The point is just that Obama favors withdrawing U.S. troops whether civilian casualties are 3000 per month or 300 per month. As such, he cannot reasonably support a troop withdrawal plan that includes a contingency clause about the ability of Iraqi security forces to maintain control of the country. Obama, unlike McCain, will not keep our troops in Iraq even if Iraqi security forces are unable to prevent al Qaeda and other extremists from re-igniting sectarian violence. That's his clear promise to America. If Obama supports this deal, he will have finally embraced the victory strategy endorsed by Bush and McCain. That would be a nice development, but I cannot imagine Barack Obama endorsing any policy that ensures victory in Iraq. His consistent policy (with a few slight wobbles along the way) has been that we should withdraw as soon as possible even if it means defeat for America (in the sense that we would leave without accomplishing our goals). He needs to stick to that promise or he'll make John Kerry start to look like Mr. Consistency.

G8 --> G7

Recently, I again called for Russia to be subtracted from the G8 as punishment for its incursion in Georgia. Looks like it might happen:

President Bush dispatched US military hardware to the heart of the Caucasus today and warned Russia that it could be frozen out of international bodies as punishment for its aggression in Georgia.
...
It is understood that talks are already taking place with US allies, including Britain, about whether to suspend Russia’s prized membership of the G8 club of industrialised nations. There is also a growing clamour to block Russia from becoming part of the World Trade Organisation and to rescind an invitation for it to join the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

As I noted in my previous post, it is economically nonsensical for Russia to be included in the group of "advanced industrialized nations" anyway. Russia had been included to honor the fact that it was joining the civilized world (not because it actually is an advanced industrialized nation). It's time to dishonor the Russians now that they have decided that they are not quite that civilized after all.

The "Weak" Dollar is not a Problem

I can't seem to agree with Barack Obama about anything:

Barack and the Buck

August 8, 2008; Page A14

The underreported economic news of the week is that Barack Obama favors a stronger dollar. Even better, he thinks a stronger greenback would help to reduce oil prices.

That at least is what the Democratic Presidential candidate told a town hall forum in Parma, Ohio, on Tuesday. "If we had a strengthening of the dollar, that would help" reduce fuel costs, he said, according to a Reuters dispatch ignored by most of the media.

This ought to be a bigger story. In linking the dollar to oil prices, Mr. Obama is pointedly at odds with the Bush Administration and Federal Reserve, both of which blame high commodity prices on supply and demand, despite falling demand due to slower global growth. Fed officials -- in particular, Vice Chairman Donald Kohn -- have expressly rejected any strong link between the dollar's collapse and the oil price surge since last August.
...
We don't know who is whispering in Mr. Obama's ear about the dollar, but he's on to a rich political vein. Americans know instinctively that something is wrong when the Canadian loonie is worth more than the greenback. Over to you, John McCain.

I agree that, instinctively, it seems like the dollar should be strong. Moreover, one's pride is repeatedly wounded when reading over and over again that the Canadian loonie or the euro is worth more than the dollar (and ever more so). Next, salt is rubbed into the wound by the inevitable next thought: the strong loonie and the strong euro must mean that the U.S. economy is weak, whereas the Canadian economy and the European economies are strong. Time to take an antidepressant. Either that, or it's time to use your brain.

Instincts, you should know, are governed by very primitive brain structures. As such, you should not allow you instinctive reaction to the weak dollar to go unchallenged by your higher brain structures. The quickest way to appreciate the fact that the falling dollar does not mean that America's economy is weak (not by a long shot) is to consider that the dollar has been falling against the euro for more than 5 years (until very recently). During those 5 years, the U.S. economy has been far outperforming the economies of Europe, and no reasonable person could suggest otherwise (though unreasonable people do all the time). To see that this is so, just read one of my many prior posts on the subject. GDP per capita, annual percentage growth in GDP, unemployment, productivity all strongly favor the U.S. economy over its competitors in the G7. Yet the dollar has been weakening for years anyway. As such, the exchange rate is not a measure of the strength of the economy.

On virtually every economic measure, the U.S. economy is equal to or better than (often much better than) the other economies of the G7. This has been true throughout the Bush administration (after the economy recovered from the dot com bubble and the attacks of 9/11), yet the dollar has weakened very considerably anyway. I'll just show you one statistic today (annual percent change in GDP) to illustrate this point:


You can see the effects of the dot com recession in 2001 and you can also see the effect of the mortgage crisis in 2007. But, otherwise, the U.S. economy -- which is already much larger than its comparison group on a per capita basis -- has generally expanded at a greater rate than the other nations of the G7 throughout the Bush years. Even so, the dollar has been weakening against the euro the whole time.

One way in which the U.S. economy is far out of synch with the other advanced economies of the world is the trade deficit. Because you read the news and because you let reporters do your thinking for you, you probably think that the U.S. economy is also far out of synch with the other advanced economies with respect to our federal budget deficit and that we have just been borrowing our way to prosperity. But that's not true. Here is a chart showing the U.S. deficit (which includes state budget deficits as well) relative to the other nations of the G7 (expressed as a percentage of GDP, which is the only way to do it; data here):


The U.S. budget deficit is a little high, but it is pretty much in line with the comparison nations, and it has been that way throughout the Bush administration. But the trade deficit? It is way out of synch, on average:


To my mind, this suggests that the dollar might be way overvalued. Perhaps this situation could have continued indefinitely, but I am not so sure about that. As you can see, as the dollar has weakened in recent years, the trade gap has been narrowing. But it still has a long way to go. A strengthening dollar will cause this gap to once again increase. So, if you favor a strong dollar because your instincts and your pride call for that, just know that you are also calling for a large increase in our already huge trade deficit. That might be OK, but the fact that this one statistic is so far out of balance makes me wonder about that. Unless inflation starts to spiral out of control, I am perfectly fine with the weakening dollar.

Also, the weakening dollar has helped our exports, and exports have been keeping the economy afloat of late. Here is one story about that:

Final Q1 GDP Growth Rate at 1% Thanks to Exports

Monday June 30, 2008

The BEA reported that the final U.S. GDP growth for Q1 2008 was revised upwards to 1%, from the Q4 2007 GDP growth rate of .6%. The increase was due to slightly higher exports, a result of the declining dollar.

Here is another article along these lines:

Exports Will Lift GDP Growth Again in 2008

Exports are saving the U.S. economy's bacon. Growth in American companies' foreign sales is poised to continue, helped by the weak dollar.

By Andrew C. Schneider, Associate Editor, The Kiplinger Letter

November 26, 2007

Let's hear it for solid export gains. They're coming into full bloom just as the economic burdens of housing and credit woes plus energy costs are making U.S. consumer and business spending wilt. In fact, exports will keep the economy from looking feeble in 2008. The country's net exports -- that is, the amount of exports minus the amount of imports (the latter subtract from economic growth) -- will account for about half of the 1.5% to 2% growth we expect next year. That contribution will be up from one-quarter of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2007, the first time since 1995 that exports have made a positive contribution to annual GDP.

And in the most recent quarter, during which the U.S. economy unexpectedly expanded by 1.9%, exports once again played an important role:

Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 1.9 percent in the second quarter of 2008 (that is, from the first quarter to the second quarter), according to advance estimates released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
...
The increase in real GDP in the second quarter primarily reflected positive contributions from exports, personal consumption expenditures (PCE), nonresidential structures, federal government spending, and state and local government spending that were partly offset by negative contributions from private inventory investment, residential fixed investment, and equipment and software. Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, decreased.

The dollar isn't really "weak," which is a term that almost compels the idea that the economy is weak. The value of the dollar is more "export favoring" than it has been in the past (and, therefore, is less "import favoring"). Given the trade deficit, that's OK by me, and I certainly would not be in effort of artificial attempts to prop up the value of the dollar against foreign currencies. The dollar is strengthening on its own in recent weeks, and I don't really know if that's a good thing or a bad thing. But my feeling is that we should just let its value find its own place without jumping in and trying to fix a possibly nonexistent problem.

UPDATE: As if to underscore my post, here is some news from today's Washington Post:

Trade Deficit Shrunk in June

Dollar's Decline Helps Push U.S. Exports to Record $164.4 Billion

By Martin Crutsinger
Associated Press
Wednesday, August 13, 2008; Page D02

The U.S. trade deficit unexpectedly fell in June as exports advanced to an all-time high, offsetting another big surge in oil imports.
...
Exports of goods and services rose to a record of $164.4 billion, helped by the dollar's declines earlier in the year, which have made U.S. goods cheaper on overseas markets.
...
The record level of U.S. exports in June reflected big increases in sales of such farm products as soybeans, corn and wheat, and gains in exports of manufactured goods. Sales of aircraft engines, electric generators and computer chips all posted big gains.

The value of the dollar is "export favoring," not "weak."

The Relative Cost of War

Matthew Yglesais provides a bubble chart (based on data from on a Congressional Research Service analysis that can be found here) that shows the absolute cost of the war in Iraq relative to the cost of other wars:


As you can see, the war in Iraq has cost as much as the war in Vietnam. But, as Yglesais points out, it makes more sense to compute the cost of war relative to the size of an economy (i.e., as a percentage of gdp). Yglesias provides this chart as well (based, I believe, on the peak year of spending rather than the cost of the entire war):



There you have it. You might still reasonably believe that the dollar cost of toppling the genocidal dictator was too high, but one should still place the number into some perspective.

Of course, dollar cost is one thing. The cost in lives is quite another. You might reasonably believe that cost of even one soldier's life was not worth bringing democracy to Iraq. Still, it is worth considering the cost in lives relative to other wars in order to keep things in perspective. The same source provides a look at U.S. casualties relative to other wars:


I could not find a similar chart comparing civilian casualties across wars. Civilian casualties in Iraq were probably in the 100,000 to 200,000 range. In WW II, it was more like 20 million, I believe. Also, it is hard to know what the number of civilian casualties in Iraq would have been over the last 5 years had we declared Iraq to be free of WMDs, removed economic sanctions that were in place because of the suspected WMDs, and then removed the no fly zones that were protecting the Kurds and Shiites (without UN approval and against the wishes of the French, Russians and Chinese). Whatever the number, it would not have been zero.

It is important to add that, in Vietnam, we did not achieve our strategic goals despite the money spent and lives lost. In Iraq, we apparently have done that. This is sometimes overlooked in discussions about the war in Iraq. It is one thing to say that "the war in Iraq was not worth the cost, and we did not even achieve our strategic goals." It is quite another to say "the war in Iraq was not worth the cost, but at least we achieved our strategic goals." When you have achieved your goals and ended the war on your own terms, it's is much harder to emphatically claim that it was not worth the cost (even though you might still come down on that side of the argument). In Iraq, we appear to have achieved our goals. The American public has not fully absorbed this fact, and their assessment of whether or not the war was worth the cost may change once they do.

Subtract Russia from the G8

I'm not sure what concrete steps one should take to deal with the Russian invasion of Georgia, but a meeting of the G8 to discuss the crisis reminded me of a post that I made more than 1 year ago. Here is how today's meeting is described:

Earlier Monday, as Russian warplanes launched fresh raids and the central Georgian city of Gori was falling to Russian troops, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice spoke by telephone with most of the foreign ministers belonging to the Group of Eight leading industrialized nations.

The G-8 consists of the U.S., Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Canada, Japan and Russia. Russia, which officially joined the group in 1998, was absent from Monday's discussions.

Here is that post from June 4 of 2007:

In my posts on the economy, I have often referred to the G7, which are the advanced industrialized nations of the world. But the G7 evolved into the G8 some time ago when Russia was invited to join the other 7 nations (the U.S., Great Britain, Japan, Germany, Canada, France, and Italy). It's time to un-invite Russia.

Russia hosted the G8 meeting last year, and it seemed to go well. Things are different this year:

Putin has gone from genial host to scary guest. In the last 12 months he has been at the center of a series of ugly incidents, including rows with neighbors and the expropriation of foreign oil company assets in Russia. Moscow has also sold air-defense systems to Iran, jet fighters to Syria and a nuclear reactor to Burma. Inside Russia, meanwhile, Putin's opponents have started turning up dead, or have been jailed and beaten by the police.

And now we have this:

MOSCOW, Russia (AP) -- Moscow could aim nuclear weapons at targets in Europe as part of "retaliatory steps" if Washington proceeds with building a missile defense system on the continent, Russian President Vladimir Putin said Monday.
...
"If a part of the strategic nuclear potential of the United States appears in Europe and, in the opinion of our military specialists, will threaten us, then we will have to take appropriate steps in response. What kind of steps? We will have to have new targets in Europe," Putin said, according to a transcript released by the Kremlin. These could be targeted with "ballistic or cruise missiles or maybe a completely new system" he said.

What, he hasn't heard that missile defense systems can't work? Just ask the Democrats, they'll tell you.

But my real question is this: What is Russia doing in the G8? A 2nd-grader to see why Russia does not belong in this group. First, let's look at per-capita GDP in the G8 (the numbers are for 2005, though any year would do):


Does one country stand out as being not like the rest?

Next, let's check political and civil freedom scores for the G8, as compiled by Freedom House:


A rating of 1 indicates free, whereas a rating of 7 indicates not free. Again, does one country again stand out as being not like the others?

Why, yes, one country clearly does not belong in this group, and that country is, quite obviously, Russia. I think it is past time that we demote that country by excluding it from future meetings of the G7. We obviously need to talk to the Russians about many issues, but we don't need to artificially and inappropriately elevate their status by pretending that they belong in a meeting of economically advanced democracies.

The "Record" Budget Deficit

Barack Obama just nailed President Bush for creating record deficits:

First, we learned that the federal budget deficit could reach nearly half a trillion dollars next year.

Eight years after we had a record surplus, we’re now faced with record deficits. This mortgaging of our children’s future is a direct result of the Bush Administration’s dangerously failed fiscal policies.

The LA Times concurs with Obama:

Bush to leave a record budget deficit of $482 billion

WASHINGTON -- President Bush will leave his successor with a record-high budget deficit of $482 billion, according to an administration estimate released Monday.

If we check the historical deficit figures at the Office of Management and Budget, and if we use $482 billion as the estimate for 2009, the numbers look like this:


In this chart, a more negative number indicates a higher deficit. Sure enough, 2009 will be a record if it comes in at $482 billion. Case closed. Barack Obama and mainstream media reporters are being completely accurate in claiming that Bush has run up "record deficits."

Right? Of course not. I'm not sure if Barack Obama does not understand the details or if he is just being deliberately deceptive, but it's one or the other. Obviously, a deficit has to be measured against the size of the economy. The above chart illustrates the deficit only in absolute terms. If I told you that Luxembourg is going to run a 2009 deficit of $70 billion, and if you were a person who thinks that absolute deficit figures are meaningful, then your reaction might be something like this:

"Well, unlike America under George Bush, Luxembourg is showing real fiscal restraint. After all, their deficit (only $70 billion) is vastly smaller than America's deficit ($485 billion)."

The problem with this way of thinking is that Luxembourg's population is less than 500,000, and their GDP is only about $35 billion. Thus, a deficit of $70 billion would be twice as large as their entire economic output. Relative to the size of the economy, this would probably be the largest deficit in the history of the world.

The point is just that you have look at the deficit in relation to the size of the economy (i.e., as a percentage of GDP). America has a huge and ever-growing economy. What will the 2009 federal deficit look like as a percentage of GDP, and how does that figure compare to earlier years? Is it a record? No:


Just so you don't miss it, I've circled years since 1980 that had a larger deficit than the one we might have in 2009. As you can see, 2009 will not be even close to a record, despite the fact that we are fighting wars in two countries, and we are in the midst of an economic slowdown due largely to the mortgage crisis. You can reasonably complain about the size of the budget deficit, but you can't call it a "record" in any meaningful sense.

Do you suppose that Barack Obama understands this, or do you think that he is being deliberately misleading?

A Deal to Withdraw our Troops

You may have heard about a possible deal with the Iraqi government that would see U.S. forces withdrawn from Iraq over the next few years. If the deal comes to pass, it will be really interesting to see how Obama and McCain react. The knee-jerk reaction of pro-Obama reporters in the mainstream media will go something like this:

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraqi negotiators have proposed a timetable for U.S. withdrawals that would see combat troops leave the country by October 2010, although Washington has not yet agreed to it, a senior Iraqi official said on Friday.

If agreed, the timetable would mean the administration of President George W. Bush effectively adopting a schedule very close to that proposed by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, who opposed the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq.

But the knee-jerk reaction is not the reaction that will matter after people have had a chance think about the deal. When violence was raging in Iraq and genocide was at hand, Obama wanted to withdraw U.S. troops, whereas McCain preferred a troop surge. Obama still adheres to the withdrawal plan that he has favored all along, which means that he favors withdrawing U.S. troops independent of conditions on the ground. Now that victory in Iraq is at hand, McCain is warming up to the idea of withdrawing U.S. forces. Like Bush, McCain's plan to withdraw U.S. troops once victory has been achieved and security can be maintained by Iraqi forces.

Reporters for the AP describe the newfound willingness of the U.S. to discuss troop withdrawal time horizons as some sort dramatic change in Bush's position:

U.S. acceptance — even tentatively — of a specific timeline would represent a dramatic reversal of American policy in place since the war began in March 2003. Both Iraqi and American officials agreed that the deal is not final and that a major unresolved issue is the U.S. demand for immunity for U.S. soldiers from prosecution under Iraqi law.

You'd think that a competent reporter would offer a word or two about the reason why Bush has entered into these negotiations. Is it because Bush always wanted a permanent troop presence, but his adventure in Iraq has failed, so he has now come around to seeing matters as anti-war Democrats do? Or is it because Bush has largely achieved the goals he set out to achieve in Iraq and that he now making good on his pledge to withdraw troops conditional on victory and on the ability of Iraqi security forces to hold the peace? Mainstream media reporters seem to have no idea, so they helpfully leave it to the reader to figure out.

Obviously, there has been no change in heart on the part of the Bush administration. The only uncertainty is whether our recent victory in Iraq -- which was simply unimaginable just 1 short year ago -- is sufficiently complete to warrant withdrawal. No one knows for sure, but there is evidence we may, indeed, be at that point. If so, then Bush would be violating his own policy by refusing to discuss the withdrawal of U.S. forces.

But here's the catch: the withdrawal of U.S. forces will not proceed according to a fixed timetable but will proceed so long as security conditions do not deteriorate:

The emerging agreement, officials said, gives Iraqis much of what they want — most notably the guarantee that there would no longer be foreign troops visible on their land — and leaves room for them to discreetly ask for an extended American presence should security deteriorate.

This is the key issue. This is the difference between a "fixed" timetable (the Obama plan) and "conditional" timetable (the McCain plan). Remember when Barack Obama seemed to waffle about the withdrawal of U.S. forces on a fixed 16-month timetable?

July 4, 2008

Barack Obama hints at backtrack on Iraq troop withdrawal

Barack Obama threw a cloud of doubt around his flagship policy yesterday, after the Democratic nominee admitted he was ready to “refine” plans for the withdrawal of all American combat troops within 16 months of taking office.

Speaking on a campaign stop in North Dakota, Mr Obama promised to use his forthcoming trip to the Middle East for a "thorough assessment" of whether the "conditions still hold" for his proposed pull-out.

“I’ve always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability. That assessment has not changed,” he said. “And when I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I’m sure I’ll have more information and will continue to refine my policies.”

This caused great controversy because it was a sign that Obama was coming around to the Bush/McCain position (and moving away from the unconditional, fixed timetable for withdrawal favored by the anti-war left). Obama reverted back to his fixed timetable shortly thereafter:

US election: Obama denies flip-flop over policy on Iraq withdrawal

Daniel Nasaw in Washington
The Guardian, Friday July 4 2008

Barack Obama was scrambling to clarify his stance on withdrawing US troops from Iraq yesterday after telling reporters that he would further shape his views following a visit to the country and meetings with military commanders there. The Republican party quickly accused the Democratic party's presidential nominee of a policy flip-flop.

Obama has campaigned on removing combat forces from Iraq within 16 months of taking office. But yesterday in Fargo, North Dakota, he told reporters: "I am going to do a thorough assessment when I'm there. I'm sure I'll have more information and continue to refine my policy."

Later he insisted the broad thrust of his policy remained unchanged. "Let me be as clear as I can be: I intend to end this war," he said. "I have seen no information that contradicts the notion that we can bring out troops out safely at a pace of one to two brigades per month," with all out within 16 months. "This is the same position that I had four months ago.

The squirming evident in Obama's shifting (and still unclear) position on Iraq is centered on the key issue: what would he do if, during the course of withdrawing our troops, the security situation in Iraq deteriorates? This is where Obama and McCain differ (at least to the extent that Obama has an identifiable position on the matter). McCain would clearly use as many U.S. troops as needed to restore security in Iraq. But what would Obama do? To be consistent, he'd have to continue withdrawing troops no matter what the situation on the ground. That was his position the last time that violence in Iraq was spiraling out of control (back when he introduced a bill to withdraw U.S. troops in an effort to stop Bush's spectacularly successful troop surge). If he favored withdrawing U.S. forces regardless of security conditions back then, why would he take security conditions into account now? Although he seems reluctant to come right out and say it, Obama seems to want our troops out in 16 months regardless of the security situation. That has been his long standing position, and if his position has remained unchanged, as he claims is the case, then it must be his position today.

The problem for Obama is that this new deal with Iraq, if it happens, will undoubtedly include provisions for increasing U.S. forces should the security situation deteriorate. When the deal is signed, an audacious reporter might actually have the nerve to ask Obama the glaringly obvious question: do you support this deal or not? If he does, then he will have dropped his plan for withdrawing troops on a fixed timetable and will have embraced a plan to withdraw troops according to the Bush/McCain model. That is, he'll be embracing a plan that withdraws troops conditional on maintaining victory in Iraq. And that will be fine with me. I can hardly wait to see how this plays out.

UPDATE: Interesting (and seemingly valid) poll result:

But 54% believe that the United States is likely to win the war in Iraq if McCain is elected, while only 25% think that is possible if Obama becomes the next president.

Hard to argue with that. This doesn't mean that Americans care all that much about victory (49% place a higher priority on withdrawing our troops, whereas only 42% place a higher priority on winning the war), but at least the options are clear.

Was the Invasion of Iraq a Strategic Blunder?

As the question of whether or the U.S. will succeed in Iraq begins recede into the past (having been answered in the affirmative, which seemed almost inconceivable just one short year ago), the question of whether or not it was a mistake to invade will surely be resurrected at some point. Before our recent unexpected success, even conservatives were coming around to the conclusion that it was a colossal mistake to have invaded Iraq. Jonah Goldberg, for example, had this to say:

Jonah Goldberg: Iraq Was a Worthy Mistake

We know now that invading Iraq was the wrong decision, but that doesn't vindicate the antiwar crowd.

Jonah Goldberg
October 19, 2006

THERE'S A STRICT taboo in the column-writing business against recycling ideas. So let me start with something fresh.

The Iraq war was a mistake.
...
And the Iraq war was a mistake by the most obvious criteria: If we had known then what we know now, we would never have gone to war with Iraq in 2003.

If we knew then what we know now. In October of 2006, what we knew was that Iraq had descended into sectarian chaos, with nearly 3000 civilians being killed every month. Things were so bad that, just a few short months later, Barack Obama decided that it would be an ideal time to withdraw our troops, so he introduced a bill in opposition to the Bush troop surge that would have done just that. Everyone, including the New York Times -- Barack Obama's staunchest supporter (and a paper that will undoubtedly endorse him for president) -- could visualize what the consequences would be:

The Road Home

July 8, 2007

When Congress returns this week, extricating American troops from the war should be at the top of its agenda...Americans must be clear that Iraq, and the region around it, could be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave. There could be reprisals against those who worked with American forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide. Potentially destabilizing refugee flows could hit Jordan and Syria. Iran and Turkey could be tempted to make power grabs. Perhaps most important, the invasion has created a new stronghold from which terrorist activity could proliferate.

That's what we knew then. But that was then and this is now. Now, we know a lot more. Now, we know that al Qaeda fought a war of choice against America in Iraq, and that's why the democratic progress that we saw in 2005 came crashing down in 2006. The setback was caused by al Qaeda's deliberate and ingenious effort to engineer a massive anti-Sunni slaughter campaign, and their method was to send suicide bombers against Shiite civilians and to bomb revered Shiite mosques. In 2006, the effort paid off when al Qaeda bombed the Golden Mosque in Samarra and the Mahdi Army responded by executing thousands of Sunni males every month in Baghdad. But things are different now. Today, al Qaeda's effort to defeat the U.S. and to create a failed state in Iraq -- an effort that came so very close to succeeding -- is a complete failure itself, and al Qaeda's reputation throughout the Muslim world has been severely tarnished. If you doubt this, check out the relevant polling results, which I summarized here.

Once upon a time, one could say that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake because it created uncontrollable sectarian violence, it aided the jihadist cause by attracting new recruits from all over the Muslim world, and it strengthened the hand of Iran by removing its greatest adversary in the region (Saddam Hussein) while empowering its ally Muqtada al Sadr. And when that was the prevailing view, the idea that it was a huge mistake to invade Iraq made sense to liberals and conservatives alike.

But that's not how it is any more. Now, sectarian violence in Iraq has been largely eliminated, al Qaeda has been dealt a historic defeat, and a democratic government (an ally in the war on terror, no less) may run the show in Iraq for a long time to come. You can say that it will all fall apart again, but that would just be expressing a thought that exists in your own mind. The facts on the ground are what they are. In light of these astonishing developments, the claim that the invasion of Iraq was a huge strategic blunder is no longer as self evident as it once seemed.

I was reminded of this issue when I came across an interesting article yesterday:

Says Tehran risks military humiliation
Gaddafi warns 'arrogant' Iran of Iraq fate

Libyan leader Muamar Gaddafi on Tuesday warned "arrogant" Iran that it faces military humiliation on the scale of Iraq for its refusal to respond to western powers over a nuclear impasse.

"What Iran is doing stems simply from arrogance," Gaddafi said during a visit to Tunisia after Tehran ignored another western deadline to accept an incentives package in exchange for full transparency on its nuclear drive.

"In the event of a decision against Iran, this country will suffer the same outcome as Iraq... Iran is not any stronger than Iraq and won't have the means to resist (a military attack) on its own," Gaddafi said.

"The challenges are greater and exceed Iran's ability to reply," he added, speaking on the third day of his visit.

To me, these comments lend further credibility to the notion that the invasion of Iraq put an end to Libya's WMD program. Gaddafi feared Saddam's fate, so he surrendered his nuclear program. This really isn't a debatable point, but if you are constitutionally unable to credit the invasion of Iraq with anything positive, you will debate it anyway (I know this from past experience). Remarkably, you will debate it even though the only person in the world who knows for sure whether or not the invasion of Iraq contributed to his decision to surrender his WMD program is Gaddafi himself. What's his position on the matter? Just this:

Gadhafi: Iraq war may have influenced WMD decision

Hans Blix, former chief U.N. weapons inspector, said he imagined "Gadhafi could have been scared by what he saw happen in Iraq."

Asked about his decision, Gadhafi acknowledged that the Iraq war may have influenced him, but he insisted he wanted to focus on the "positive."

The invasion of Iraq influenced him, and now he is trying to get Iran to follow in his footsteps. If Iran does eventually do that, then a contributing factor is likely to be our success in Iraq. Iran, like al Qaeda, has been trying to engineer a U.S. failure in Iraq (e.g., Iran supplied the deadliest IEDs to insurgents, and those IEDs killed many U.S. troops). Like al Qaeda, Iran has failed in Iraq. Instead of handing over Iraq to al Qaeda and Iran, which was the Barack Obama plan back when violence was at its peak, Bush stuck to his guns. Now Iran is in a tight spot with a crumbling economy, U.S. troops on its border, and a world that seems ready to impose additional sanctions.

I'm not sure what Iran is going to do now. If they let tensions decrease, the price of oil will plummet even more than it has already. Oil is all that Iran has, and their economy is tanking even with the price of a barrel being sky high. Thus, even if they wanted to give up their nukes (which they don't), it would be tough for them to do. I expect them to wait for the outcome of the U.S. election before making any real decision.

The real question on Iran boils down to a simple question that has nothing at all to do with negotiations. The question is this: if Iran proceeds to build a nuclear bomb no matter what, should military force be used to stop them? That's the only question. For Barack Obama, it is clear that the answer is "no." That's why he wants to drawn down the strategic petroleum reserve by 70 million barrels to temporarily drive down the price of oil. Since he is not going to order an attack against Iran under any circumstances, this oil will not be needed anyway. John McCain is opposed to Obama's plan to draw down our oil reserves. For McCain, the military option is clearly on the table. As such, he sees a potential need for those 70 million barrels of oil.

Well, the outcome of the world's confrontation with Iran will be another factor to take into account when deciding whether or not the invasion of Iraq was a huge strategic blunder (or, perhaps, the opposite). My point today is that the answer is not as clear as it once seemed.

Capital Punishment, in the News Again

Last night, the execution of a man who had raped and murdered two girls got a lot of news coverage:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Mexican national Jose Ernesto Medellin has been executed by lethal injection, according to Texas prison officials.

Corrections spokeswoman Michelle Lyons said Medellin died at 9:57 CT.

The U.S. Supreme Court denied the last-ditch appeal of a Mexican national on Texas' death row late Tuesday, paving the way for him to be executed for a pair of brutal slayings, state corrections officials said.
...
Medellin was 18 when he participated in the June 1993 gang rape and murder of two Harris County girls, Jennifer Ertman, 14, and Elizabeth Pena, 16. He was convicted of the crimes and sentenced to death.

This execution got a lot of attention because of what I consider to be a comparatively minor issue. Specifically, the International Court of Justice ruled in 2004 that the United States had violated the rights of prisoners like him because he wasn’t allowed to consult the Mexican consulate for legal help following his arrest (he apparently did not request such help until after his conviction). I don't know the details of this dispute, and, on the surface, the international court would seem to have a reasonable point. But, to me, the importance of this issue simply pales in comparison to the issue of whether or not the execution of this man might serve to deter similar atrocities in the future. If so, that fact is vastly more important as the procedural detail in question. In the news media, many death-penalty-related issues get vast amounts of coverage (are innocent people on death row?, do lethal injections constitute cruel and unusual punishment?, is a state like New Jersey about to pass legislation banning its use?, is the U.S. out of step with the most of the world and too much like China in its willingness to execute prisoners?, and on and on). By contrast, how many articles have you seen on the possible deterrent effect of capital punishment over the last 10 years or so? I've seen two.

Just so you know where I am coming from, I support capital punishment if it deters murder. Against about 50 executions per year, there are approximately 16,000 murders each year in America, and half of those victims are black (even though blacks make up something like 12% of America's population). If there is even a small deterrent effect over and above the use of life imprisonment, many innocent lives will be saved by using capital punishment. Moreover, innocent black lives are likely to be disproportionately saved. If, for example, 50 executions per year reduce the murder rate by a mere 3%, that translates into about 500 innocent lives saved (perhaps half of which would be black lives). These facts explain why I support the limited use of capital punishment (assuming the deterrent effect is real) and why I cannot accept the views of death-penalty opponents who point the possibility of an innocent person being executed or to racial injustice as reasons for opposing capital punishment. If it has a deterrent effect, banning its use effectively means executing perhaps hundreds of innocent blacks every year. I fail to see the social justice in that.

If capital punishment were shown not to have a deterrent effect, then I'd favor it abolition. The idea that it does not serve as a deterrent is, in my mind, ridiculous on its face (e.g., how many death row inmates are completely indifferent between life in prison and lethal injection?), but research could change my views. I'd want the burden of proof to be on those who begin with the seemingly preposterous view (namely, the view that says that executing guilty murderers will not have even so much as a slight deterrent effect), but, in the real world, the burden of proof is on those who believe that what is almost certainly true based on common sense actually is true. So be it. Even with that misplaced burden of proof, recent research is almost unanimous in concluding that capital punishment has a deterrent effect over and above the use of life imprisonment. The only mystery is why you don't already know this fact very well, and the answer has to be that a media that is incredibly interested in the science of global warming (because of its conclusions) is almost completely uninterested in the science of capital punishment (again, because of its conclusions).

Despite my quibble with the media on this issue, I do give the New York Times credit for writing one article on the subject -- an article that seems to accurately convey the scientific state of affairs on this matter.

Does Death Penalty Save Lives? A New Debate

By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: November 18, 2007

For the first time in a generation, the question of whether the death penalty deters murders has captured the attention of scholars in law and economics, setting off an intense new debate about one of the central justifications for capital punishment.

According to roughly a dozen recent studies, executions save lives. For each inmate put to death, the studies say, 3 to 18 murders are prevented.
...
The studies, performed by economists in the past decade, compare the number of executions in different jurisdictions with homicide rates over time — while trying to eliminate the effects of crime rates, conviction rates and other factors — and say that murder rates tend to fall as executions rise. One influential study looked at 3,054 counties over two decades.

“I personally am opposed to the death penalty,” said H. Naci Mocan, an economist at Louisiana State University and an author of a study finding that each execution saves five lives. “But my research shows that there is a deterrent effect.”
...
“The evidence on whether it has a significant deterrent effect seems sufficiently plausible that the moral issue becomes a difficult one,” said Cass R. Sunstein, a law professor at the University of Chicago who has frequently taken liberal positions. “I did shift from being against the death penalty to thinking that if it has a significant deterrent effect it’s probably justified.”

Professor Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule, a law professor at Harvard, wrote in their own Stanford Law Review article that “the recent evidence of a deterrent effect from capital punishment seems impressive, especially in light of its ‘apparent power and unanimity,’ ” quoting a conclusion of a separate overview of the evidence in 2005 by Robert Weisberg, a law professor at Stanford, in the Annual Review of Law and Social Science.

“Capital punishment may well save lives,” the two professors continued. “Those who object to capital punishment, and who do so in the name of protecting life, must come to terms with the possibility that the failure to inflict capital punishment will fail to protect life.”

As you can see, studies conducted between about 1997 and 2007 are unanimous in concluding that capital punishment deters murder. You are not required to accept the conclusions of these studies any more than you are required to accept the conclusions of studies suggesting that anthropogentic CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming (scientific research is rarely definitive, and credible scientists question the prevailing conclusions in both cases). But I don't think you can simply write off the research. For the most part, the media writes off the science of capital punishment. But at least the New York Times wrote an article on the subject, and if one article were sufficient to get the point across, that would fine. Unfortunately, one article is clearly not enough. I say that based on how the views of the American public have changed over the years. As you will see, the American public's views on the matter have, in recent years, changed in exactly the opposite direction as the views of social scientists who investigate the issue. Let's start with how Americans feel about the death penalty. Here are some recent polling results:




It is very clear that Americans continue to favor the death penalty. But look at these results:


Back in the early 19p0s, Americans thought that capital punishment served as a deterrent to murder. In more recent years -- during the very years that research began to suggest that it does, indeed, serve as a deterrent -- Americans came to the opposite conclusion. Can you think of any explanation for this other than the fact that the mainstream media is fascinated any death penalty issue except for its possible deterrence effect? Perhaps there is another explanation, but that's the only one that I can think of.

In any case, the polling results show that I am out of step with America on this issue. Like Barack Obama, many Americans support the use of the death penalty even though they think it does not deter murder:

Obama wrote in his recent memoir that he thinks the death penalty "does little to deter crime." But he supports capital punishment in cases "so heinous, so beyond the pale, that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment."

I don't really resonate to this position, but many Americans clearly do. Like Obama, they want the death penalty retained even if it does not deter murder. If it did not deter murder, I'd still feel like killing any adult who joins in the gang rape and murder of young girls (and I'd consider you to be psychologically unwell if you did not feel the same way). But feelings are one thing and moral principles are another. If executing guilty murderers did not save innocent lives, I'd favor life imprisonment as the most severe penalty for any crime. However, in light of recent research, I come down in favor of capital punishment for particularly heinous crimes (and the gang rape and murder of young girls definitely falls into the "heinous" category in my book).

Zoom Out before you Freak Out about the State of the U.S. Economy

As most everyone becomes hysterical over the state of the U.S. economy, I feel compelled to reiterate a point that I have often made in the past: to get a feel for the state of our economy, you have to look at its condition over time and over place. The most basic measure of the state of the economy is GDP per capita. The most reasonable comparison group is the other members of the G7 (the advanced industrialized nations of the world). To compare GDP per capita across nations, the numbers are typically adjusted for purchasing power parity (PPP) to correct for differences in the cost of living in different countries. The International Monetary Fund provides the data, and I took a look at them again today for the years 2000 (the year before Bush took office) and 2007:


As you can plainly see, GDP per capita in the U.S. is far above that of every other advanced industrialized nation. There are a few tiny nations of Europe with even higher values, but it makes no sense to compare the U.S. (with a population of 300 million people) with that of, say, Luxembourg (with a population of less than 500,000, I believe).

Because the 6 other nations of the G7 are similar to each other on this measure, I made a simpler graph by averaging them together:


There you have the state of the U.S. economy during the Bush years relative to the world's other great economies. I don't believe that there is a better summary measure, and you should keep this chart in mind as you whine about the dire state of the U.S. economy today.

I know exactly what you are thinking (because I've done this before): oh, sure, GDP per capita is high, but that's only because the rich are very well off, and that skews the figure upward, thereby presenting a misleading result. I'm not going to address that issue today, but I will flatly state that you are wrong about that and then ask a simple question: what makes you believe it in the first place? If you think about that question for a moment, you'll realize that you have no actual reason for believing it except for occasional claims in the press that income inequality in the U.S. is greater than that in other nations. That's true, but it does not address the issue. For example, imagine a country club with a $100,000 membership fee and compare it to a neighborhood swimming club with a $500 membership fee. In the neighborhood club, you might find people with incomes that range from $75,000 per year to $350,000 per year. In the country club, the incomes might range from $1 million per year to $20 million per year. Income inequality in the country club is much larger than in the neighborhood swimming club, but it would still be true that members in the country club are better off, on average, than members of the neighborhood swim club. The income inequality measure doesn't tell you what you need to know. What you need to know is the income distribution across nations, and when you look at that, you'll see that the cherished idea that impressive GDP figures in the U.S. reflect nothing more than wealth at the top is quite wrong. I dealt with this issue in detail here, in case you are interested.

A second measure worth noting is productivity per hour worked. In the U.S., we work a lot. In Europe, leisure is more highly valued. Thus, perhaps the difference merely reflects the fact that people in the U.S. spend more time working. What does productivity per hour look like, and how has that changed during the Bush years? Again, we have to use a PPP correction to compare productivity across nations, and there are two such PPP corrections, GK$ (which I believe is the one used by the IMF in the figure above) and EKS$. I'll show both, but they tell the same story. The numbers comes from The Conference Board and Groningen Growth and Development Centre, Total Economy Database:




As you can see, the productivity of the American worker has always been high. At the start of the Bush administration, the U.S. was in second place (behind only France). Here at the end of his administration, the U.S. is in first place. Thus, the U.S. worker is the most productive on a per hour basis and the U.S. worker puts in more hours of work than the workers of most other nations. When you put those two facts together and add the fact that the unemployment rate in the U.S. is lower than it is in most of the other nations of the G7, the big lead in GDP per capita for the U.S. is understandable.

Whether or not we enter the long-predicted recession resulting from the mortgage crisis and the rapid rise in oil prices, the U.S. economy is going to remain far healthier than the other economies of the G7 for a long time to come.

Al Qaeda's Leaders are Inside Pakistan, not Afghanistan

I hope you will pay careful attention to a detail that is mentioned in this new story:

Al-Qaida admits deaths of four leaders

Airstrike likely killed al-Masri, accused of training USS Cole attackers

CAIRO, Egypt - Al-Qaida confirmed in a Web statement Sunday the death of a senior commander known as a top explosives and poisons expert, who is believed to have been killed in a U.S. airstrike in Pakistan last week.

The statement said Abu Khabab al-Masri and three other commanders were killed. It did not give details on when or how they were killed, but Pakistani authorities have said they believe al-Masri died in an American airstrike last Monday on a compound near the Afghan border.

Pakistani officials have said six people were killed in that strike, in the country's lawless South Waziristan tribal region.

For years now, South Waziristan has been thought to be the hiding place of Osama bin laden and other high-ranking al Qaeda officials:

4 March 2004

Waziristan: Bin Laden's hiding place?

There is growing world attention on the remote Pakistani tribal region of South Waziristan as efforts continue to locate Osama Bin Laden and other key al-Qaeda and Taleban suspects.

Here is a map showing where South Waziristan is (circled in blue):


As you can see, South Waziristan is "along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border." As you can also see by taking note of the border with Afghanistan (the jagged line shown in dark green), South Waziristan is inside Pakistan. That's why the U.S. just used a pilotless drone instead of using Army or Marine special forces to kill 4 of al Qaeda's leaders there.

The point is that it is well known that al Qaeda's leaders are inside Pakistan. Is this point easy to understand or hard to understand? It seems hard to understand because otherwise thoughtful people keep advocating plans like this:

Obama: Shift troops to fight al-Qaida

Chicago Tribune | July 14, 2007
By Mike Glover

The U.S. should shift troops from Iraq to pursue al-Qaida along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Saturday.

He said President Bush's war-fighting policies have left the United States at greater risk from terrorists. The first-term Illinois senator said decisions by the Republican president had allowed Osama bin Laden and his deputies to elude capture.

"We cannot win a war against the terrorists if we're on the wrong battlefield," Obama said. "America must urgently begin deploying from Iraq and take the fight more effectively to the enemy's home by destroying al-Qaida's leadership along the Afghan-Pakistan border, eliminating their command and control networks and disrupting their funding."

When people speak about targeting "al-Qaida's leadership along the Afghan-Pakistan border," they are referring to South Waziristan. That area is, indeed, located along the Afghan-Pakistan border, as you can see from the map above, but it is also located inside Pakistan, which is the critical detail that Barack Obama and many others just gloss right over.

Is it unfair to ask how additional U.S. troops in Afghanistan would allow us to better strike "al-Qaida's leadership along the Afghan-Pakistan border" (i.e., in South Waziristan, Pakistan)? Is there some way in which this question is unfair? And why is the question too complex to coalesce in the minds of mainstream media reporters who never think to ask about it? Am I missing something here or are they? I think they are.

Have you ever noticed that no al Qaeda leaders are ever killed inside Afghanistan? Have you also noticed that they are periodically killed in Pakistan by pilotless drones? The point is that al Qaeda's leaders are completely inside Pakistan. That being the case, I'd just like to know how Barack Obama and his supporters believe that sending more troops to Afghanistan will address the problem. He never says, which is understandable (i.e., the facts complicate his position, so he ignores them, as any good politician would), and reporters never think to ask about it (which is not understandable to me at all).

On his web site, Barack Obama is almost shameless when it comes to this issue because he goes out of his way to create the impression that al Qaeda's leaders are inside Afghanistan, not Pakistan:

Resurgent Al Qaeda in Afghanistan: The decision to invade Iraq diverted resources from the war in Afghanistan, making it harder for us to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden and others involved in the 9/11 attacks. Nearly seven years later, the Taliban has reemerged in southern Afghanistan while Al Qaeda has used the space provided by the Iraq war to regroup, train and plan for another attack on the United States. 2007 was the most violent year in Afghanistan since the invasion in 2001. The scale of our deployments in Iraq continues to set back our ability to finish the fight in Afghanistan, producing unacceptable strategic risks.

None of this is meant to imply that we don't need more troops in Afghanistan to more completely suppress the hapless but relentless Taliban. And I don't mean to imply that al Qaeda is not beginning to target NATO troops in Afghanistan now that al Qaeda's cause in Iraq has been lost (thank goodness). The central front in the war on terror may finally be shifting to Afghanistan. But these are different issues. Barack Obama claims that Afghanistan has been the central front in our war with al Qaeda all along and, more specifically, that we can go after al Qaeda's leaders by sending more troops there. That sounds like a good plan so long as you don't stop to think about it. When you audaciously do that, a tiny problem with the plan becomes glaringly obvious. Why mainstream media reporters never think to ask Barack Obama about this is a real mystery to me.

Economically Speaking, the Future is Always Grim

Back in April, you were probably under the impression that the economy was about to tank:

April. 21, 2008

WASHINGTON - The odds the country will fall into its first recession since 2001 are rising sharply.

Thirty percent of economists now believe the economy will shrink in the first half of this year, up from 10 percent who thought this in January, according to a survey being released Monday by the National Association for Business Economics, known by its acronym NABE.

“That’s a striking difference,” said Ken Simonson, chief economist for the Associated General Contractors of America and the NABE’s point person on the survey. The tone of the overall survey, he said, was “extremely gloomy.”
...
The majority of forecasters polled — 51 percent — thought the economic growth during the first half of this year would clock in between zero and 1 percent, which would still mark a feeble showing. Sixteen percent pegged growth in the first half at between 1 and 2 percent, while only three percent put it at between 2 and 3 percent. No forecaster believed growth during this period would exceed 3 percent.

A few days later, more dire predictions:

April. 30, 2008

Many analysts were predicting that the gross domestic product (GDP) would weaken a bit more — to a pace of just 0.5 percent — in the first quarter. Earlier this year, some thought the economy would actually lurch into reverse during the opening quarter. Now, they say they believe that will likely happen during the current April-to-June period.
...
A growing number of economists believe the economy is in a recession and is indeed contracting now.

Well, who am I to wait for the actual data? After all, a "growing number of economists" were under the impression that the economy was already shrinking, and we all know that economists are able to predict the future with great accuracy.

Of course, now that the GDP numbers look a lot better than everyone expected, the numbers are nevertheless disappointing because, well, other economists were actually predicting slightly higher growth:

July 31, 2008

The gross domestic product, the broadest measure of the nation's economic activity, grew at an annual rate of 1.9% in the three months ended in June. That's up from a revised 0.9% growth rate in the first quarter.

Still, the reading was weaker than expected, as economists surveyed by Briefing.com had forecast growth of 2.3%.

To economists, it seems that the future is always bleak, and the past is always worse than they thought it would be. But the economy itself? The Economist probably puts it best:

THE American economy has often defied predictions of its demise. It has done so again. Official figures published on Thursday July 31st show that America’s GDP rose at an annualised rate of 1.9% in the second quarter. This would a respectable enough growth rate at the best of times. That this was achieved despite the considerable handicaps of a badly damaged banking system, a big jump in oil prices and the ongoing housing bust, makes it remarkable.

I know, I know. Economically speaking, the future is grim. It always is. Just consider how the future looked as recently as April. Back then, today's economy was contracting (according to a "growing number of economists"), not expanding at a rate of 1.9%.

UPDATE: Obama has been on the defensive this week, with the McCain campaign hammering away in a series of ads designed to cut the Democratic nominee down to size. A story in the New York Times raises the question of why Obama does not hit back harder:

More broadly, the battles this week over Mr. Obama’s comments and Mr. McCain’s efforts to link Mr. Obama’s celebrity to that of Paris Hilton and Britney Spears raised the question for some political types of both parties about whether Mr. Obama is aggressive enough to lunge for the Republican jugular.

This raised a question in my mind: what is the Republican jugular, exactly? The story points to this possibility:

After two straight defeats in presidential elections, Democrats sometimes speak of hungering for a more aggressive standard-bearer to confront Republican attacks. Some wonder why, every time he speaks of the economy, Mr. Obama does not mention that Mr. McCain’s chief economic adviser referred to a “mental” recession rather than a real one.

If that's the Republican jugular, then Obama will have trouble lunging for it until GDP growth clocks in at less than 1.9%. Perhaps the revised figure will show slower growth when it is released in a month or so. For the time being, we really are in a mental recession (except, of course, for the future, which is terribly bleak).

Casualties in Iraq, July 2008

In April of 2007, Harry Reid famously said:

Senator Reid On Iraq: "This War Is Lost"

Democratic Majority Leader Says Troop Buildup Is Not Working

WASHINGTON, April 20, 2007

(CBS/AP) The Senate debate on Iraq grew sharper Thursday when Majority Leader Harry Reid said the war had been lost and that President Bush's troop buildup is not stemming the rampant violence. That statement prompted Republicans to declare that Democrats do not support the troops in Iraq.

"I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense and — you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows — (know) this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday," said Reid.

In July of 2007, the editors of the New York Times opined:

It is frighteningly clear that Mr. Bush’s plan is to stay the course as long as he is president and dump the mess on his successor. Whatever his cause was, it is lost...

It is amazing to me how those who have trouble defining victory in Iraq can so easily define defeat. It seems to me that one issue that separates the left from the right on this issue is that, if you are on the right, you see nothing good -- nothing at all -- in America suffering a military defeat (either in Iraq or in Vietnam). If you are on the left, although you might patriotically prefer an American victory, you might also be able to see at least some good in our powerful military being defeated. I suspect as much because of how quickly those on the left jump to the conclusion that we have been defeated in Iraq and also because liberal commentators sometimes come right out and say it:

What it will take to end war

By James Carroll | November 6, 2006
...
It is one thing to feel uneasy about your nation's war, or even to move to a position of outright opposition. It is another to face the harsh fact that the only way out of the war is to accept defeat.
...
For all of the anguish felt over the loss of American lives, can we acknowledge that there is something proper in the way that hubristic American power has been thwarted? Can we admit that the loss of honor will not come with how the war ends, because we lost our honor when we began it? This time, can we accept defeat?

Nope, we can't. Iraq will not be another Vietnam because, this time, the war is ending in a clear victory for the good guys (the actual good guys, as grating as that might be to your non-conservative sensibilities). Here are the latest casualty figures according to Iraq Coalition Casualty Count (with standard corrections to the data described here):




The conditions that caused Harry Reid and the editors of the New York Times to declare that this war is lost have been reversed. I wonder if they are starting to think that this war is won? I am.

Our apparent victory in Iraq has had serious consequences for al Qaeda according to this new article in the Washington Post:

Al-Qaeda in Iraq Leader May Be in Afghanistan

By Amit R. Paley
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, July 31, 2008; Page A01

BAGHDAD, July 30 -- The leader of the Sunni insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq and several of his top lieutenants have recently left Iraq for Afghanistan, according to group leaders and Iraqi intelligence officials, a possible further sign of what Iraqi and U.S. officials call growing disarray and weakness in the organization.

U.S. officials say there are indications that al-Qaeda is diverting new recruits from going to Iraq, where its fighters have suffered dramatic setbacks, to going to Afghanistan and Pakistan, where they appear to be making gains.

Now, if you've spent the better part of 2 years denying the decisive role that al Qaeda played in fomenting sectarian violence in Iraq (e.g., if you get your news from the New York Times), news like this must come as a shock to you. After all, hasn't the "right war" been in Afghanistan all in along? Hasn't Afghanistan, not Iraq, been the central front in the war on terror all along (as Barack Obama suggests)? No, and it is downright creepy that anyone can believe this. Go look up all of the attacks attributed to al Qaeda in Afghanistan over the last 5 years, and then ask yourself one simple question: why does the total number of such attacks add up to zero? Absolute zero? If you accept Barack Obama's analysis of the situation, then you obviously have not tried to investigate the matter for yourself. It really does mean that, otherwise you'd be able list articles that attribute many suicide bombing attacks and many thousands of casualties to al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Go ahead, knock yourself out in an attempt to substantiate the theory advanced by Barack Obama. Then do what almost no one ever does: adjust your views in accordance with the available evidence (or lack thereof). If you support Barack Obama, I know for a fact that you will do no such thing (i.e., your view will not change), but you should still investigate what al Qaeda has been doing in Afghanistan. You might be surprised at what you learn. Obama obscures this issue by constantly refer to the Afghanistan/ Pakistan border, and no one but the editors of the Washington Post have pointed out the glaringly obvious detail that al Qaeda's leaders are inside Pakistan. As such, confronting them militarily means sending our troops to Pakistan. It seems strange to me that mainstream media reporters steer very clear of this all-important detail by treating Obama's position as being arguably correct. It isn't. Al Qaeda has not been operating in Afghanistan for many years. They've been in Iraq instead.

As I have tirelessly pointed out on my blog, Osama bin Laden long ago diverted his suicide bombers away from Afghanistan to fight the Americans in Iraq (note the year of publication).

Bin Laden's Iraq Plans

By Sami Yousafzai, Ron Moreau and Michael Hirsh
Newsweek

Monday 15 December 2003

During the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, three senior Qaeda representatives allegedly held a secret meeting in Afghanistan with two top Taliban commanders.
...
At that meeting, according to Taliban sources, Osama bin Laden's men officially broke some bad news to emissaries from Mullah Mohammed Omar, the elusive leader of Afghanistan's ousted fundamentalist regime. Their message: Al Qaeda would be diverting a large number of fighters from the anti-U.S. insurgency in Afghanistan to Iraq. Al Qaeda also planned to reduce by half its $3 million monthly contribution to Afghan jihadi outfits.

All this was on the orders of bin Laden himself, the sources said.

The new article in today's Washington Post suggests that bin Laden has accepted defeat in Iraq and is concentrating once again on Afghanistan. That's truly fascinating. But between 2003, when bin Laden made his decision to fight in Iraq (not Afghanistan), and 2008, when he apparently decided to retreat to Afghanistan, the left completely missed al Qaeda's incredibly effective campaign to send American troops home from Iraq in ignominious defeat. Here is one of many, many examples from leading Democrats trying to convince the American public that the chaos in Iraq had nothing at all to do with al Qaeda:

Again, this is a civil war going on in Iraq. This is not the United States versus Al Qaida. It's Shia versus Sunnis tearing each other apart. It's gone on for centuries, but particularly here right now.

The United States is being asked to, in a sense, referee a civil war.
...
The idea that this is a winnable conflict by the United States -- every military leader from the very outset have said this is not a situation where there's a military victory for us here.

Once again, here is someone on the left discussing an American defeat in Iraq, and being rather more comfortable with the concept than I will ever be. I'm not saying that we should have a country in which everyone wants military victory no matter what. Such a country really might be at risk of becoming what many on the left mistakenly think that America has already become (namely, an imperialistic, war-mongering renegade nation). You need the counterweight provided by the left. I recognize that even though I refuse to join them and I certainly don't want them to dictate the outcome in Iraq (and it seems that they won't, thank goodness).

It's strange, but while Democrats were busy denying the undeniable, al Qaeda launched a misbegotten adventure in Iraq. I'm not sure that the Sunnis would have ever been pacified had they not allied themselves with al Qaeda in an effort to evict American forces and to topple the elected government of Iraq. Thus, in a very real way, we may have al Qaeda to thank for our apparent military victory in Iraq. And I have al Qaeda to thank for the fact that I no longer fear an Obama presidency as much as I once did. With victory in Iraq almost a certainty, and with a beaten al Qaeda shifting back to Afghanistan, Obama's national security plans are accidentally reasonable (in the same way that a stopped clock is right twice a day). As the enemy shifts from Iraq to Afghanistan, our forces should shift there as well (so that we can inflict another defeat on the organization that attacked America on 9/11). Also, if Iraq does descend into sectarian chaos once Obama removes our troops (which I don't think will happen), then that catastrophe will have one small silver lining. Specifically, history will undoubtedly record the fact that victory in Iraq was all but assured until America elected an inexperienced liberal leader who foolishly withdrew American forces against the advice of the ingenious general who brought Iraq back from the brink of genocide. I assume that Obama can play this little simulation in his head, and that suggests to me that he may not unconditionally withdraw our troops from Iraq. Instead, he'll stick to his withdrawal plan to long as George Bush's military victory in Iraq is secure.