Why China Is More Powerful Than the US

Short answer: it's not, I'm just polluting the Internet with more disinformation.  Dan Drezner debunks the myth in Foreign Policy.

Lord Acton Was Right

Barking Up the Wrong Tree has a post, on a study which asked whether power makes us dehumanize people. The answer is "yes". Whether it's childhood bullying, or soldiers and civilians, the wealthy and the poor, whenever there's an imbalance of power it's going to be abused.  Not always, but enough of the time any moral person should be concerned and work to change the situation.

[Updated: On second thought, that might be my definition of the difference between conservatism and liberalism: liberalism thinks governmental action can be rational and improve balances of power; conservatism thinks government action will mostly make things worse.]

An Interesting Life

A local heiress died at 70, and her obit in the Post was one of the more interesting I've ever read.  For one thing, in reference to her second husband:

"About the kindest things that witnesses could say of Carmichael were that he was a pretentious, scheming, self-infatuated, manipulative dilettante."

Those Overpaid Federal Bureaucrats

This Post article discussing the possibility of some airports switching from TSA to private contractors to do security checks. Interestingly, there's no clear conclusion on whether private contractors would be cheaper.

At the other end of the spectrum, the Post had an article on high-level government employees leaving the Obama administration for private employment which might use their knowledge and contacts.  They anticipate a doubling of their salaries.

The Halcyon Days of Nonpartisan Policy Making

Back when Prof. Kahn of Cornell was pushing deregulation:

” He also enjoyed a convergence of interests including conservatives (he credited the Ford administration with paving the way for his efforts), liberals (particularly Senator Ted Kennedy, whose 1975 hearings highlighted the perverse effects of airline deregulation and supported increased competition), consumer groups and activists (notably Ralph Nader), and academics.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/02/alfred-kahn-was-a-true-american-hero/#ixzz1A0DVBW1h

The Fallacy of X Is a Minuscule Percentage of the Budget

I'm starting to see preemptive arguments from interests groups along the lines of: "cutting expenditures for [X] isn't worthwhile because the total cost of [X] is such a minimal part of the federal budget.  I think I've seen that from farm groups, the food movement, and groups worried about NEA and NEH.  I suspect it will be a popular meme as we move into the budgetary furor between Obama, Dems, and the new Republican House.

The argument is, of course, utter nonsense. Nonsense at least in a good government sense.  If X is a program worth doing at some level, it's worth doing at that level.  If not, it can and should be cut back to whatever level makes it worthwhile, which could be zero. How big a program is in comparison to overall expenditures is meaningless. The problem is we can't agree on the "worth doing" and "some level".  The rhetoric of the argument invites us to recognize the problem and move on to some other program of perhaps a bigger size.  It's the converse of what I think Sen. Russell Long said: "don't tax you, don't tax me, tax that fellow behind the tree".

What it means is we'll likely have some across-the-board cuts: spread the pain around.  It's not the best way to administer, but it works in a democracy.

Changing Times--Remembering Happy

Happy is still around, I found as I checked her wikipedia entry.  Nelson Rockefeller's divorce of his first wife, Happy's divorce of her husband, and their quick remarriage to each other, meaning the disruption of the lives of a bunch of children, all paved the way for our modern disaster: the nomination of Goldwater in 1964 instead of Rocky, the rise of Reagan to prominence with the "speech", Reagan's election in 1980, and the setting of the bar so low as to permit a charming demagogue to dream of the Presidency.  (I know, I might be exaggerating, but just a tad.)

I recall it to mind because of the NYTimes article on the new governor, Mr. Cuomo, and his live-in girlfriend, Sandra Lee, of whom I'd never heard.  What was a scandal in 1962 is totally unremarkable in 2011; 49 years do make a difference.

So Much for Global Warming?

Since I started the day, and therefore the year, in a depressed mode, let me pass on some other good news. Via John Phipps, the latest graph from NASA showing that local temperatures don't reflect reality.  And, via Treehugger, this graphic from Skeptical Science summarizes indications of a warming globe.

A Depressing Way to Start the New Year

From the Times Nate Silver-- 538 blog, in a post analyzing Sarah Palin's prospects:

There was a time not too long ago, back when President Obama’s standing was a little stronger, when you’d hear the argument that some of the Republican candidates might sit 2012 out, figuring that 2016 would present a clearer path toward victory. You don’t really hear that anymore. Mr. Obama will not be easy to defeat: his approval ratings have stopped their slide. But clearly, he is beatable. If his approval ratings are in November 2012 what they are right now — somewhere in the mid-to-high 40s — a reasonably strong Republican nominee would be about even-money to beat him, based on historical precedent. [emphasis added]

It's a good analysis, which makes his current assessment of Obama's electability even more depressing.

Are You a Screwball? Metaphors

A post at York Town Square provides a definition of "screwball", the definitive one.  It sounds logical to me, though a fast search doesn't reveal any confirmation.  But I know filter screens can clog, and I can imagine bouncing balls could vibrate it enough to keep it clear, and such motion (brownian, perhaps) would be erratic, erratic enough to lead to the modern definition of "screwball".