Author Archive

The Assistant Village Idiot observes that Democratic politicians tend to say “I’ll fight for you,” whereas Republican politicians tend to say “I’ll work for you.” His explanation:

Republicans run for office telling you they’re going to work for you, because that’s how they perceive progress happening: someone works for it. Democrats run telling you they’re going to fight for you, because they believe that’s how improvement comes: someone has to wrest good stuff away from others.

I think it’s generally true that Republicans have tended to say “work” and Democrats have tended to say “fight”, although I did notice that McCain used the F-word several times during his announcement of Gov Pailin’s candidacy.

Neptunus Lex had some related thoughts:

The innate character flaw of the political right, with its thrumming appeals to the logic of blood and soil, is its lamentable tendency to go in search of enemies abroad. The left, on the other hand, with its own appeals to the politics of envy and class warfare, is content to find mortal enemies closer to hand.

To me, it seems pretty clear that today’s Democrats view society basically as a neo-Hobbesian war of group against group…hence, their preference for the “fight” formulation–with the fighting, of course, to be done against fellow Americans–is a natural one.

It being Labor Day, there will doubtless be many political speeches and newspaper articles touching on the rise of the American middle class and crediting this rise to labor unions and perhaps also to FDR’s New Deal.

I don’t mind giving some of the credit to unions. But the primary driver of middle class affluence has been the availability of plentiful and low-cost energy…especially in the form of electricity…coupled with a whole array of productivity-increasing tools and methods, ranging from the horse-drawn harvester to the assembly line to the automated check sorting machine.

The middle class affluence enabled by these factors is gravely threatened is gravely threatened by the Democratic-”progressive” hostility toward energy production and distribution in all practical forms, and by the endless set of productivity-sapping policies advocated by the same group of people.

Over the long term, or even the medium term, a nation cannot consume more than it produces. It doesn’t matter how aggressive the unions are, or what tax policies are in place, or how much Oprah-like sympathy for the unfortunate is exuded by politicians–if you harm the productive power of a nation, its average standard of living is going to go down.

Low-energy, low-productivity societies can support a very wealthy elite, and have historically often done so, but they cannot support a broadly affluent middle class.

What I’ve heard of the Democratic convention reminds me of some lines from Gilbert & Sullivan’s The Mikado:

Sent to hear sermons by mystical Germans
Who preach from ten till four

Unfortunately, the Republican convention will probably come across the same way.

In late June, the U.S. Missile Defense agency conducted a successful test of THAAD, the Terminal High Area Defense system. THAAD is intended to provide the upper level of a multilayer defensive shield, with a lower-level defense provided by Patriot or a similar system. It is particularly intended as a defense against short- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles, although it also offers some capability against intercontinental missiles.

I don’t think Barack Obama would be much of a THAAD supporter. In this speech, he says he would cut investments in “unproven missile defense systems” and indeed seems pretty hostile to defense technology programs in general.

I guess THAAD counts as an “unproven technology,” given that it has not yet been combat-tested or even deployed. The radar-and-communications network that protected Britain from air attack during WWII was also an “unproven technology” when it was deployed: it is very fortunate that Neville Chamberlain, rather than Barack Obama, was Prime Minister of Britain at the time.

THAAD is a hit-to-kill system: it destroys its targets via force of impact, rather than with an explosive charge. This is basically “hitting a bullet with a bullet,” an idea that opponents of missile defense have long mocked.

An aerodynamicist once supposedly “proved” that it was impossible for bumblebees to fly; however, the bumblebee continues flying happily, unaware of the impossibility of its behavior. Similarly, THAAD “hits a bullet with a bullet,” not deterred by the supposed impossibility of this action.

Very clearly, “progressives”–and even many mainstream liberals–have long been hostile to the very idea of missile defense. They were hostile to it when the principal threat was from the Soviet Union, and they are hostile to it when the principal threat is from rogue states, terrorists, and a brutish theocracy. They were hostile to it when the latest thing in computer technology was the IBM System/370, and they are hostile to it several generations of technology later. It seems to really bother them that any system should be so presumptuous as to interpose itself between Americans–and citizens of allied nations–and those who would launch missiles at them.

Why?

A couple of years ago, Sallie Krawcheck, then CFO of Citigroup (now Chairman & CEO of Citi Global Wealth Management) was asked how being a woman had affected her career. Her response:

I think it’s an advantage. I grew up in Charleston, a very genteel, very Southern city, a gorgeous city. I will say there’s something about going to an all-girls school in Charleston that’s tougher than Wall Street. You don’t know what it’s like. I had the glasses, the braces, the corrective shoes. I was half-Jewish, half-WASPy. I couldn’t have been further outcast. There was nothing they could do to me at Salomon Brothers in the ’80s that was worse than the seventh grade.

The current issue of Fortune (8/18) has a profile of Meredith Whitney, who was one of the first securities analysts to recognize the seriousness of the subprime/CDO situation. Ms Whitney is married to a professional wrestler. From the article:

Another eye opener for Whitney has been how gracious most wrestlers are–at least when the cameras aren’t rolling–in comparison with the viper-pit culture on Wall Street. It sounds absurd–the world of high finance being less collegial than an industry in which employees belt each other in the face.

If we put these two assessments together, we get:

Pro Wrestling

is nicer than

Wall Street

which is nicer than

Seventh Grade

An editorial in Investor’s Business Daily (8/11) contains the following passage:

In 2005, (Barack Obama) voted to kill legislation that would have measured our offshore (oil and gas) reserves.

His bill would prohibit the expanded use of 3-D seismic techniques to search for and measure undersea oil deposits.

This seemed so unbelievable, even give what I knew about Obama’s ideas on energy, that I had to check for myself to see if it was true.
Read the rest of this entry »

Regarding the events in Georgia, Neptunus Lex has some questions:

Millions marched in San Francisco, Rome, Barcelona and London when a US-led coalition of democracies prepared to depose a murderous tyrant - where are they now, when a tyrant seeks to depose a democratically elected government?

Others protested in Florence and Glocestershire when NATO bombers intervened to stop a genocide in Kosovo - where are they now, when bombers and helicopter gunships rain death upon innocents?

Read the whole thing.

Barrons (7/14) contains the following sentence:

Even more impressive is the value of the oil reserves of petroleum-exporting countries, which now total an estimated $140 trillion, nearly three times the size of global equity markets, which have a combined market value of around $50 trillion. (emphasis added)

There are a couple of things wrong with this comparison. It is not correct, IMNSHO, to compare a cash flow stream which will be recognized over years/decades to a current market value–the cash flow stream should be discounted to present value. (Equity market values already represent, at least in theory, the discounted present value of their corresponding free cash flow streams.) Also, I’m pretty sure reserve value is a gross value, which doesn’t take production costs into account. For a place like Saudi Arabia, these may be minimal at present, but they will not remain minimal over the life of the asset.

But even after these adjustments are applied, you will probably come out with something like:

The value of the oil reserves of petroleum-exporting countries is equal to the size of global equity markets.

Think about what this means. Ownership of the land under which oil resides is roughly equal in value to ownership of the equity interest in all the world’s publicly-traded companies, with their factories, mines, brand values, and intellectual capital…the accumulated work and knowledge of centuries.

This represents in a sense a return to the pre-industrial age, in which the ownership of land was the predominant form of wealth. If this situation is sustained, it will represent a tremendous change in the world economic order, and not at all a positive one.
Read the rest of this entry »

In June, a pack of University of Chicago professors sent a letter to the university’s President, objecting to naming a new Institute after the Nobel-prize-winning economist Milton Friedman.

Comes now John Cochrane, a UC economics professor, with a brutal and effective deconstruction of the bad writing and bad thinking in this letter. (Via Newmark’s Door)

Obama’s sermon to the Germans has been much discussed in the blogosphere. In this post, I’d like to focus on one thread of the speech: Obama’s words about the Berlin Airlift:

Sixty years ago, the planes that flew over Berlin did not drop bombs; instead they delivered food, and coal, and candy to grateful children. And in that show of solidarity, those pilots won more than a military victory. They won hearts and minds; love and loyalty and trust - not just from the people in this city, but from all those who heard the story of what they did here.

Actually, of course, a very large number of bombs had been dropped on Berlin and other German cities, just a few years earlier. Americans were in Berlin at all only due to the application of military force, without which, Berlin would have continued to be a Nazi city–and one in which a Barack Obama, if he were allowed to continue living at all, would certainly not have been allowed to give a political speech.

And Berlin–along with the rest of West Germany–avoided Soviet invasion and domination only because of American military force. The unarmed transport planes that supplied Berlin would not have survived had the Soviets not been aware of the armed fighters and bombers–and nuclear weapons–that were in American possession.
Read the rest of this entry »

In a post on Ships and the Global Economy, I mentioned a sail-assist technology which has been develope by a German company. Operating something like a kite, the SkySails system is said to be capable of lowering vessel fuel costs by 10-35%.

Comes now Compagnie de Transport Maritime à la Voile which has entered the cargo transportation business with a pure-sail approach. The 106-year-old Kathleen & May will be running wine from Bordeaux to Dublin. CMTV has chartered several additional sailing ships and will be using them to ship products such as coffee and jam. The company also intends to have new vessels built to its specifications.

Here’s CMTV’s website. Note that shippers get a “logo sticker” that they can attach to their products, certifying that “goods are transferred to consumers in a clean and socially responsible way that contributes to sustainable development, without neglecting the requirement to exchange necessary goods between people.”

I doubt if pure sail will ever recapture a significant portion of the world ocean transportation industry, but it may well thrive in some niche markets, serving people who want to buy products which are defined as “green” or “sustainable” and who may also enjoy the association with the romance of sail.

Sail-assist technologies for powered vessels, on the other hand, may have a significant role to play, particularly if oil prices continue to climb and if environmental restrictions mandate the replacement of bunker fuel with the more-expensive distillates.

Here’s a report on the test on the SkySails system on the multipurpose cargo ship Michael A. Note the interesting comparison of the tractive force from the sail with the thrust from an Airbus A318 turbine engine.

CMTV item via Checks with Chart.

…does Obama have one? Can he laugh at himself?

Do these questions really matter?

Elizabeth Scalia explores the Obama-humor relationship.

The modern anti-Semite looks entirely different. He does not have a shaved head. He has good manners and often an academic title as well…The modern anti-Semite does not believe in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. But instead he fantasizes about an “Israel lobby” that is supposed to control American foreign policy like a tail that wags the dog. For the modern anti-Semite, it goes without saying that every year on January 27 he will commemorate the liberation of Auschwitz. But at the same time he militates for the right of Iran to have atomic weapons.

–Henryk Broder, in a speech to the German Bundestag.

Saw a car today with two bumper stickers–one said “Support Israel” and the other was some kind of pro-Democratic-Party statement.

It struck me that this was like a car in 1938 Britain with bumper stickers (did they have bumper stickers in those days?) saying:

“Keep Czechoslovakia Free”

and

“Support Neville Chamberlain”

Edward Markey, a Democratic U.S. Congressman, told a group of high school students that “climate change” was responsible for the famine in Somalia and hence for the 1993 “Black Hawk down” battle between American troops and Somali rebels. He also told the students, who were from the Gulf states, that hurricane Katrina had been caused by global warming.

As if there hadn’t been famines, wars, and massacres..and hurricanes…for thousands of years.

Markey’s comments seem to me to be more than a little unhinged. Neptunus Lex:

To call this sort of thinking “muddled” is to do disservice leftmost tail of the intellectual bell curve. “Fantastic” might be a better description. As in “magical”.

Unfortunately, this quality of thought is pretty common on the Democratic side of the Congressional aisle. If these people were businesspeople, and applied this kind of thinking to running their businesses, they would quickly go broke. If they were tribal leaders, their tribes would wind up dying of famine or killed/enslaved by enemies. If they were ship captains, they’d run aground or be sunk by typhoons.

Pretty scary to think how much influence they have on our collective future.

Update: Corrected Markey’s title–thanks, BobC.

Today at 10:00 EDT, the oilman / corporate raider T Boone Pickens will hold a press conference to launch his plan (humbly entitled “the Pickens Plan”) for sharply reducing the American demand for imported oil. The address of the webcast is at the link.

Here is the Pickens Plan website, and here’s a USA Today article on the plan.

In a nutshell, the idea is:

1)Heavy use of wind power-much of it to be produced in massive wind farms–to generate electricity. This would free up large amounts of natural gas, which is now a primary fuel for electrical generation.
2)Shift a substantial portion of America’s car and truck fleet to run on natural gas, which would of course become relatively cheaper if it were less in demand for power generation.

Let’s discuss.

You’ve probably already heard about the thief who alerted police after breaking into a van…which contained devices that appeared to be explosives.

This incident reminded me of another story.

Odette Sansom (later Odette Hallowes) was an agent of the WWII British sabotage organization Special Operations Executive. Unlike many SOE agents, she survived the war. She was honored by the British government with the MBE and the George Cross, and was made a Chevalier de la Légion d’honneur by the French.

Some time after the war, the house of Odette’s mother was burglarized, and these decorations were stolen along with some silver. Odette’s mother appealed via the newspapers for the return of the decorations, and the thief sent them back along with this note:

You, Madame, appear to be a dear old lady. God bless you and your children. I thank you for having faith in me. I am not all that bad - it’s just circumstances. Your little dog really loves me. I gave him a nice pat and left him a piece of meat - out of fridge.

A Bad Egg.

On July 4, 1941–five months before Pearl Harbor–a long poem titled Listen to the People, written by Stephen Vincent Benet, was presented on nationwide radio. The full text was also printed in Life magazine. Here’s the whole thing. I posted an excerpt of this poem at Chicago Boyz in 2006…in the comments, Steve Barton points to a podcast of a 1943 performance of this work.

Other 4th of July reading:

Power Line has thoughts from Lincoln and Calvin Coolidge(!)

Reenlistment ceremony in Baghdad.

Update: Corrected date of original radio broadcast of the Benet poem.

Iraqi boy with American soldier, Sadr City, June 20.

Found here, via Neptunus Lex.

NYT reports that many recently-graduated engineers (also programmers and mathematicians) are choosing to work for strictly-commercial firms rather than in the defense sector. Reasons given include:

1)Better pay in the commercial sector

2)A feeling that military projects take so long that anyone working on them is unlikely to keep up with current technology

3)A related perception that military projects are more bureaucratic than strictly-commercial work

4)Many more job options available for engineers than there were 10 or 20 years ago, including consulting and finance

5)Over half the engineering doctoral candidates at American universities are from abroad and hence ineligible for top security clearances

6)Trendiness…employers like Google have more cachet than those like Northrop Grumman

The article cites several big military programs that have had serious problems, attributable at least in part to poor engineering management. On the other hand, management problems in large government military and civilian programs are not new, and there are plenty of horror stories in the strictly-commercial world, too.

But if talented engineers are indeed avoiding defense work, it could lead to some serious problems down the road. I’d love to hear some discussion on this, particularly from those who work or have worked on defense projects, whether on the government side or the industry side.

UPDATE: There’s also a post on this at Neptunus Lex…promises to be an interesting discussion since it’s a blog frequented by many military and aviation people.

UPDATE 2: Thanks for all the comments so far. A couple more points I’d like to add:

1)Choosing careers & employers based on current trendiness is not always a smart strategy. In 1999, chemical & petroleum engineering weren’t at all trendy; the only forms of technology getting any media play were those which were directly computer-related. But now, chemical & petroleum talent is in short supply, with salaries to match.

In his book on the development of the 747, Joe Sutter remarks that, in his early days at Boeing (late 1940s) everyone wanted to work on jets. He was assigned to a prop-airliner development team (the Stratocruiser) and got a lot more early responsibility than he likely would have on one of the sexier projects. Similarly, when the development of the 747 was first mooted, the trendy thing was the supersonic transport. Had Sutter insisted on working in trendy areas, and been able to dragoon his management into going along with him, he would likely have never become the engineering manager for a large and successful airliner project.

2)Bill Swanson, CEO of Raytheon, tells the following story from a time he visited Nellis Air Force Base:

“I introduced myself to a pilot, and he looked me in the eye and said, “If it wasn’t for what you all do, I wouldn’t be here today.” A missile had been launched at his F-15, but we make a decoy, which he deployed. The decoy didn’t come home — but he did, to his family. I use that feeling to remind everyone that people’s lives depend on the reliability of our products.”

There are at least some people who get more satisfaction out of the kind of thing than out of helping to create a recognizable c