Always Hoping For A "Star Trek Ending"

One of the weaknesses of the Star Trek, The Next Generation series was its tendency for its writers to paint themselves into a corner, and then for the escape to be the fabrication of new technology - a new feature, gizmo or anomaly that allows a clean escape. The funny thing is, people think this way so most people probably didn't recognize the contrivance. For some Trekkies, this becomes a loop that feeds itself - I once heard somebody declare that food would never be in short supply because scientists would develop "replicators" (give a voice command and molecules are instantly assembled into pretty much whatever you demand), never mind the science involved.

Here's somebody who should know better.

A couple years ago I wrote a post asserting that technology and markets are more powerful than government and politics. I cited the government's case against microsoft and the emergence of the morning after pill and other remedies like it to give women the right to choose even if the government decides to take it away.

The whole stem cell debate is another example of this. For the past nine years, our country has been debating the morality of using embryonic stem cells to do research and develop new drugs and possibly save lives and dramatically improve quality of life for some. Our current administration has made it hard to do stem cell research on embryonic stem cells.

But this week comes the news that researchers have figured out how to make stem cells from human skin cells.

The initial argument is simplistic - the government has demonstrated that it is more than capable of keeping "the morning after pill" away from consumers, and some states were happy to let pharmacists decline to offer it to customers. Technology that is not available does not create choice. But the bigger problem lies in the substitution of wishful thinking for analysis - with stem cells, a scientist using government grant money opened up one can of worms, and after the government responded in a non-scientific fashion (which isn't even morally consistent), the same scientist received more government money to find a different way to develop stem cell lines.

If the current findings are confirmed, yes, it removes one of the most difficult moral impediments to stem cell research. But what we're really talking about here is a scientific advance necessitated by government policy, which would not have happened but for government funding. It may be a triumph of technology, but it is hardly a triumph of the markets.

But the great thing about technology is it always tries to solve the problems it creates. And has a track record of doing so.

Next up - our reliance on carbon-based energy and the pollution, climate change, and wealth and power effects it creates.

This type of wishful thinking.... It's a bit like swallowing arsenic then expecting a miracle cure. Science can't always save you and, even if the magic cure might eventually come, there's a substantial chance that it will arrive too late to help. This type of faith comes close to elevating science and "the markets" to a religion - and, dare I point out, it is non-scientific.

Latent Anti-Americanism

The way things have always been....

France, 1885:

Jaques: I hate the Americans.

Frédéric: Me too.

Jaques: What should we do to express our disgust?

Frédéric: I'm going to build them a great big statue that they will put in a harbor and hold out as a symbol of their country, then I will laugh and say, "It's a great big lady, and she looks like my mother."

Jaques: Formidable!

When I read that the Iraq war invigorated the anti-Americanism that has always been latent pretty much everywhere , I can't help but wonder... who is the speaker actually describing. What a double standard. We can express absolute contempt for any nation we wish, or for its leadership, but we're not "anti"-that nation. We're doing something else, like standing up for truth, justice and the American way. But when other nations express consternation that our foreign policy is affecting their interests, ooh... there's that omnipresent "latent anti-Americanism" becoming patent again.

I've been to quite a few countries and guess what? I've found that people in other nations are fully capable of distinguishing between an individual American and the policies of our government. If Ms. Applebaum's experience has been different, which I would be surprised given that her travel likely involves floating by chartered jet and limo to five star hotels and restaurants, it's probably less a reflection on attitudes toward America and more a reflection of how she treats those around her. If she's arguing, "Oh yes, I am treated just fine, but then they criticize the policies of my government," well, boo hoo.

Social Security Reform

Ruth Marcus attempts to "call out" Paul Krugman for inconsistency on Social Security reform, complaining that he "mischaracterize[s] the arguments of those who advocate responsible action, accusing them of hyping the system's woes." Given that she writes for a newspaper that constantly shills in favor of private accounts (oh, that courageous Fred Thompson), I can't say I'm surprised by this characterization. Paul Krugman provides a brief response to Marcus here.

The Post's objections to the Thompson plan are weak. They object to his (far from original) proposal to base increases in benefits on cost of living rather than growth in wages because of its effect on low-earning workers. The Post's insistence that this change would be unfair to the poor betrays both its belief that Social Security should be a welfare program, and that the proposal is inadequate to maintain Social Security as a meaningful benefit. If the Post wants to transform Social Security into a welfare program, it should just say so. It has to know that if different indices are used for the poor, we will eventually reach a point where the poor will get the highest benefits in a system that is meant to pay out based on what you have paid in. Adding heavily subsidized "private accounts" as a "sweetener"? If we supposedly can't afford the current system, which involves using Social Security funds to purchase treasury notes, how will we afford this diversion of trillions into (presumably limited) private investments? Thompson's plan is written for a rich faction that wants to eliminate Social Security, and quite deliberately reduces the benefit such that, eventually, the payments will seem so nominal that voters will support the elimination of the program. The Post gives that "two cheers" because they are too obtuse to grasp that, or because the fig leaf isn't quite big enough?

People like Ruth Marcus sit at the bottom of an enormous well and, when asked to help find a way out, propose digging their way to China with a teaspoon. I'm all for long-term planning, and that includes planning for the future of Social Security. But this is not 2000-2001, when we were deciding what to do with the Clinton budget surpluses. We have three feet of water in the basement, Fred Thompson's plumbing service proposed that our priority should be switching to high efficiency shower heads, and the Post is pretty happy with that... but is concerned that a few people should enjoy higher flow. And if you dare suggest that they have their priorities messed up....

Calling for Social Security reform when the economy is strong and we are running budget surpluses might be courageous, at least as politicians define courage, as there doesn't appear to be a need. When we have massive budget deficits, in the absence of any plan to deal with immediate fiscal issues or even Medicare costs, calling for Social Security reform is cowardly. It represents pandering to a particular group of Social Security foes, and an attempt to "look serious" while sidestepping the financial issues that we face right now or which will go into crisis long before 2040, the date when by some projections the Social Security trust fund will become exhausted.

So let's have it - the Post's comprehensive plan to deal with our present budget issues, including but not limited to Social Security. Can we expect that sometime soon Mr. Hiatt? Ms. Marcus? (I didn't think so.)

Politics as Usual

A suggested book title for the memoirs of pretty much every Bush Administration insider: If I Did It.

Oh, That's Right... He's Not A Journalist

Deborah Howell, responding to an "intemperate email" sent by a music critic,

Post journalists can get angry. They can have thoughts as bad as any other human being. But they can't say them in public or put them in writing and send them out into the world. That damages The Post's credibility.

Okay... so a reporter faces undisclosed discipline for sending this email to Marion Barry,

After receiving an unsolicited press release, Page snapped back: "Must we hear about it every time this crack addict attempts to rehabilitate himself with some new -- and typically half-witted -- political grandstanding? I'd be grateful if you would take me off your mailing list. I cannot think of anything the useless Marion Barry could do that would interest me in the slightest, up to and including overdose."

Compare and contrast.

That Sounds Like A Legal Standard, Mr. Kerry

T. Boone Pickens makes a foolish challenge, offering "$1 million to anyone who can disprove even a single charge of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth", and John Kerry responds,

"While I am prepared to show they lied on allegation after allegation, you have generously offered to pay one million dollars for just one thing that can be proven false," Kerry wrote to Pickens. "I am prepared to prove the lie beyond any reasonable doubt."

If you don't wish to retract your statement, Mr. Pickens, you should probably get your checkbook out. If Mr. Kerry pursues this I expect that you will be cutting checks to Mr. Kerry, your legal team, or both.

If The Shoe Were On the Other Foot

In terms of prosecuting Blackwater 'contractors' for shooting civilians,

The legal path will not be easy, but there are options. The government could seek to prosecute the guards under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, or MEJA, which extends American criminal law to contractors overseas. Or it could try to court-martial the guards under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which was amended last year to cover contractors accompanying the armed forces in the field.

It could also offer a plea deal — including some prison time — to any guards found to have recklessly violated deadly force rules. The guards may be a lot more interested if Washington makes it clear that it is ready to waive the immunity from Iraqi prosecution, granted to contractors by the American occupation government three years ago.

None of these options is foolproof. MEJA applies to contractors that accompany American armed forces, while the Blackwater guards were working for the State Department. Using the military code would face the same problem and would have to contend with Supreme Court opinions from the 1950s and 1960s barring the courts-martial of civilians.

When you follow the law, especially if as the occupying power you made the law incredibly self-serving, things get so complicated. If the shoe were on the other foot, this would be easy - Bush would call them "illegal combatants", and argue that no further law or due process was required.