Afghan Road Rage

The Post yesterday had another interesting memo from the front. This time it was from the command sergeant major in Afghanistan, counselling his troops on the best approach to the Afghan populace. Unfortunately, they haven't yet put the image of the memo on their web site, just an
introduction to it: "Indeed, U.S. troops have earned a reputation as 'negligent, offensive, rude, callous, occupiers, hostile, disrespectful . . . you get the point.' That description is found in the memo below by a senior sergeant in Afghanistan, signaling that the Army is thinking seriously about how to operate differently -- and more effectively -- in its counterinsurgency efforts."

It struck my eye for two reasons. It reaffirms what I knew from Nam--you put guns in the hands of big young males and they will try to prove Lord Acton's maxim: "power corrupts...." But it also proves the hold of the past--it's typed in monospaced type (i.e. pica or elite). The bureaucracy has problems believing that proportional spacing upper and lower case is the most readable font.

Staging Photography

Dr. Bernstein at The Volokh Conspiracy has commented extensively on evidence of staging and faking photographs from Lebanon. I commented, and will expand here. (I should look up Susan Sontag's book on the subject, but I'm too lazy.) There's are multiple continuums of photography, with many distinctions, some of which get overlooked in the current discussion:

• at one extreme is the "snapshot", interpreted literally. The photographer is an observer with a fast trigger finger (like Col. Van Loan(?sp) shooting the Vietcong prisoner in Vietnam during Tet 68). Security camera footage and "candid camera" shots also qualify.
  
• the planned "snapshot", where the subject matter is predictable but the photographer is still an observer. Think of the famous photo of Clinton and Lewinsky in the receiving line or JFKjr under JFK's desk--the photographers knew they might get a picture from the situation and did.
• this grades over into "photo-ops" and ceremonies, where the subject plans an event to provide the predictable pictures.
  
• there's also the photographer-posed events, like wedding ceremonies, handshakes, etc. The NYTimes had a photo in connection with the completion of digging a section of tunnel for the water system. A worker had one foot on the rail. While it seemed real, I suspect it was posed, because it was too good a picture to be caught naturally.
  
• a new variation is the "realness" of the event. A wedding or a bill signing is a real event, usually but not necessarily. Realness also ties to "uniqueness"--presumably you can only get a picture once.
  
• finally there's the photographer created events, like much art.

For Lebanon, perhaps there's less toleration of "posing", if any occured, because of the importance of the subject (as compared to the tunnel digging). There's an implicit contract between photographer/media and reader/viewer--what you provide is warranted to be a true reflection of reality in all important aspects. But there's also a contract between photographer and subject--you can take the picture if it's in my best interests. Sometimes the contracts are irreconcilable.

Bureaucrats and Info Sharing

Today's NYTimes has an op-ed piece, All Terrorism Is Local, Too , by an Interpol official complaining that:

"ALTHOUGH last week’s disruption of a terrorist plot to blow up commercial airliners over the Atlantic was a great success, it nonetheless exposed a dangerous gap in global security efforts. The problem is that governments and security services in countries that arrest terrorists and announce their triumphs to the press often fail to alert national and local police forces around the world or share with them information that is crucial to protecting their citizens."

Nothing new here. It's the way people work and it's why "information sharing" is the name of a mirage.

Anti-Modern Elements Unite

Ilya Somin at The Volokh Conspiracy: has a post " on the religious right in Israel reaching out to Hamas:

[According to Rabbi Jakobovits], '[t]he Islamic world has deep concerns about the penetration of liberal, secular values and lifestyles into the Middle East. A major factor in the conflict between radical Islam and the Western world is Islam's opposition to secular lifestyle and ideology.

'The haredi community understands their sensitivities and mentality and feels threatened by the same phenomena. The haredi community could play a key role in dialogue between the West and Islam because we live in two worlds, one deeply religious and the other liberal and pluralistic. We understand that the secular mind is different from the religious mind."

Some of the religious right in this country also have deep concerns about the penetration of liberal, secular values and lifestyles in the U.S. (See this post in the Times about the push to change "dry laws".) I think it's fair to say that generally the left doesn't have such concerns, except to the extent that "liberal, secular values" overlap "free market, capitalist values"--i.e., some on the left are generally anti-Walmart, so might support the retention of dry laws.

Victory, Defeat, Lottery Wins and Stumbling on Happiness

Tom Friedman in the Times today makes a valuable point, The Morning After the Morning After: which he phrases like this:

"With every war there are two days to keep in mind when the guns fall silent: the morning after, and the morning after the morning after. America, Israel and all those who want to see Lebanon’s democracy revived need to keep their eyes focused on the morning after the morning after."

His point is that, while there will be claims of victory by Hezbollah on the morning after, the real issue is what happens after that. This ties into Dr. Gilbert's "Stumbling on Happiness". He says we overrate the importance of key events in the future--how happy or sad we will be when our team wins, our candidate loses, or whatever. What really happens is that the event bobs briefly above the waves, but then sinks to its proper level among all the day-to-day events of living. We were all sad (not true, but that's the historical myth) when JFK was shot. We were all ashamed when the last helicopter lifted from South Vietnam. We were all elated when Armstrong took one small step. But none of those events, in themselves, contributes to our current glee or tears. We deal with the effects of them, but they're in some perspective now.

The same will apply if we "cut and run" from Iraq. Certainly Bucheney is right to say it would be hailed as a victory for al-Qaeda, just as he's been hailing it as a victory for freedom for these many years. When Reagan cut and ran from Lebanon, it was a victory for Hezbollah. But you can win victories and lose the war. You can win a war and lose a peace. You can gain hegemony for a time and fall into decrepitude.

Of course it's better to win victories. But in the long haul what counts is the day-to-day effects, the work, the intelligence, and the morality with which one strives.

Our Exports--Punks and Posers

The Post yesterday had this article on the punk scene in China--Punks and Posers in China: "For Chinese punks today, it might take screaming to be heard. They make up a small slice of the music industry here, and they play to a largely underground scene. But their struggle to gain attention provides a glimpse of what it's like to be a rebel in a country that suppresses dissent and individuality, and an artist in a culture that worships money and Western fads."

It's the last bit that fascinates me. This was a culture that 25 years ago was still in Mao jackets. Now it worships Western fads. And maybe we should be relaxed about intellectual property rights--won't it be better to have a world in which the second most populous nation (China in 25 years) is strongly oriented to American pop culture and spending their money on our pop stars.

Or, as my old geezer side kicks in, maybe not. Maybe this is really Chinese subversion??

Handedness and Earnings

My father was a lefty, converted to write right, but ate left, which can cause seating complications for group dining. The subject's always been of interest to me.

There's new research out, here at NBER: "We examine whether handedness is related to performance in the labor market and, in particular, earnings. We find a significant wage effect for left-handed men with high levels of education. This positive wage effect is strongest among those who have lower than average earnings relative to those of similar high education". The Wash Post covers the story here.


Tyler Cowen comments here, Dan Drezner comments here.

The subject of handedness has been covered in a fascinating award-winning book--see the web site--Right Hand, Left Hand. The author covers the varieties of leftyism, tying in everything from genetics, fetal development, the road systems in European countries and the process of developing a nation (which side of the road do you drive on) to the structure of the universe (how do you determine what's left and what's right).

One's Deeds or One's Life?

The Post carries an article today that I had an emotional reaction to:

Killer May Be Unearthed From Arlington Cemetery: "The bill requiring the removal of Wagner's remains follows action by Congress last year that tightened restrictions on interring veterans convicted of any offense for which the death penalty or life imprisonment could be imposed.

Previously, the prohibition extended only to those who had been sentenced to death or life imprisonment without parole. This left open the possibility that people who were eligible for parole -- no matter what their likelihood of early release -- could receive military honors at Arlington or another military cemetery."

Seems to me the issue is the separability of one's life from one's deeds. Is it possible for evil men to do good things, or does the evil inevitably stain the deed? Can one enjoy Wagner's operas (I don't, particularly) even though he was anti-Semitic? My first, kneejerk reaction is that deeds should be separated from the life, and that someone who qualifies for Arlington shouldn't be disqualified by later evil. Like I say, it's a first reaction, subject to second thoughts.

Post Stories on Ag Programs--Followup II

This continues my response to DZ, who commented on the Post stories in early July:

4) Should recipients of farm program payments be means tested? DZ mentions the means testing for student aid. We could also mention the earned income tax credit, TANF (welfare), etc. In the farm area, most (all?) of the disaster programs are limited to operations with less than $2.5 million gross income (provision dating back to 1986) and what's left of the old "Farmers Home Administration" loan programs require collecting extensive financial data. (Essentially FSA becomes the bank of last resort.)

My thoughts--means testing could attract urban support for the program, but would drastically change the programs as they operate now. Bureaucratically, we know that such provisions are subject to abuse and fraud, more so than the relatively simple entitlement programs FSA is used to. Confidentiality of data, which DZ mentions as an issue, is tricky. One of the strengths of FSA offices is that the workers are part of the rural community. It's lots different than entrusting your IRS-1040 to some anonymous clerk you never meet at church or the store.

5) DZ says some local governments have required developers of ag land which had the far lower farmland tax assessment to pay the difference between assessments when they finally develop the land.

I guess there's a difference between tax breaks based on usage and establishing "permanent" agricultural zones like Montgomery county, MD has done. Bureaucratically, I'm dubious of some of this sort of thing. The Post articles mentioned that Texas counties looked to FSA for their definition of "agricultural use." One of the problems I'd see is that there's no check and balance (except for the occasional muckraking journalist); no one looking over the shoulder of the bureaucrat to be sure the rules are followed, like whether the amount the developer is to pay is computed correctly and is actually paid. Both MD and Fairfax county have had problems where builders built houses bigger than the rules allowed. (Of course, assessments in Fairfax are now online, so maybe new technlogy is handling the problem.)

6) From DZ: "While the story largely focuses on non-farmers who receive money for land not producing crops, it also devotes a fair amount of attention to farmers and investors who own land and get farm payments on land producing "program" crops. Given the latter focus, it's interesting that there's no mention of the impact of the Real Estate Investment Trust on farmland purchases and prices. I know that's been a concern in the Cornbelt where property owners - for example, those in Chicago - have sold property and then bought land at much lower prices per acre. That's made it more expensive for "large and established" farmers to buy farmland, not to mention any impact on small/young farmers with little capital."

Yes, I've seen mention of this issue when I surfed some discussion sites devoted to agriculture. I'm no expert on it, but it might illustrate one of the problems for journalists writing on farm problems--there's overlap between sectors, like agriculture and financial, and the journalist almost has to grow up with the topic to follow all the ins and outs.

Post Stories on Ag Programs--Followup I

Back in July, while my PC was down (and no, I haven't backed it up yet, :-( ), I got an email from D..Z.. (it was an email, not a comment on the blog, so I'm hiding the full name just in case he's concerned. He made very good points, which I promised to respond to when my PC was up. This is the delayed fulfillment of the promise:

1 DZ points out that the Post articles describe the 1996 Freedom to Farm Act as allowing farmers to grow crops without restrictions. That was the way the Act was sold to farmers and the general public. But buried in the fine print was a restriction (actually carried over from the previous farm bill, if memory serves) that prevented farmers from growing "fruits and vegetables" on land previously used for program crops. In other words, farmers were free to switch among "field" crops, like soybeans, other oilseeds, corn, cotton, rice, etc. But established fruit and vegetable growers were afraid of new competition, so the ban was included.

2 That many of the program recipients are widows. DZ heard a USDA official use 30 percent as the figure. I don't know the stat, but the point is true. From the beginning of the farm programs, the landowner has been eligible for payments if the owner shares in the crop. In other words, if I grow the crops on land I rent from Widow Jones for $100 an acre, cash payment, I get all the program payments. But if I rent from her on crop shares, with her getting one-third of the crop, she gets one-third of the payment. A controversy relates to what happens when the program prevents growing the crop--can Widow Jones get all the payment or can I get my 2/3's, even though I grow no crop? The issue arose in 1933 with cotton and sharecroppers, and continues to the present.

Back to widows: women outlive men, so they inherit land, rent it out, and still get payments because they own the land, which leads to point 3.

3 There is a stipulation in the law (since 1985) that payment recipients have to be "actively engaged" in farming. It's part of the payment limitation provisions. To oversimplify, in part because I no longer remember the rules well enough, contributing land and/or capital to the farming operation can qualify one as "actively engaged". So someone who inherited farm land years after they moved to the city and became rich can still be actively engaged in farming and receive program payments. It seems weird, but perhaps it's because our image of the farmer is the 160-acre man and his wife in "American Gothic".

To be continued (This just covers the first few of DZ's points.)