Jonathan

Economist Reuven Brenner argues that distribution of national oil revenues among the Iraqi populace would contribute greatly to peace, freedom and prosperity in the region, and that this would be the case even if the country eventually split along ethnic or religious lines.

Ideas have long lives. Embodied in institutions, they outlive their usefulness – and bring about instability. Ideas, which were initially useful in fighting misgovernment by foreigners and which were a response to growing mistrust among the increased population within each European “tribe”, were transformed into deeds and institutions. These institutions sustain myths, create habits, which are then exported to other countries. Habits of thought slowly harden into character – with the origins of thoughts and events that set this sequence in motion, long forgotten.

Oil money sustains both dictatorships and much outdated institutions and character traits. This is why the crucial first step in achieving stability in the Middle East is to disperse the funds among people living within the now recognized borders, rather than let it flow through the hands of unaccountable and corrupt rulers and governments. Unless the people within the present Iraq borders are given such tangible stake in the future, “democracy” and “constitutions” will become nothing but empty promises and worthless pieces of paper, with the vast majority of people mired in poverty and ignorance.

Waiter!

Note Howard Dean’s comments:

WEST PALM BEACH — Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean said Sunday he hoped the capture of Saddam Hussein will change “the course of the occupation of Iraq.”

Also:

“This, I hope, will change the course of the occupation of Iraq but I think the first order of business is to say this is a great day. I congratulate the Iraqi people,” Dean said.

Dean is right that it’s a great day, and it’s decent of him to congratulate President Bush. But note Dean’s repetition of his comment about “[changing] the course of the occupation of Iraq.” He appears to be setting up the argument for U.S. withdrawal: Hussein is gone, now it’s time for us to get out.

Look for it.

UPDATE: Power Line comments.

Glenn Reynolds has a thoughtful post, with many links, on this subject. There are arguments.

Most of the arguments are silly. Use the technology that’s best for you. Image resolution is far from being the only dimension of comparison or even the most important one.

I carry a camera partly to capture interesting sights and scenery that I run into, but mainly as an aide-memoire. Keeping a record of where I’ve been and who I’ve been with seems increasingly important as I get older. So while the easy workflow of digital cameras is important for pros who make large numbers of images, for me it is most important to create a permanent record. Film, especially conventional B&W film, is good for this. (Digital archiving requires, at best, regular attention to transferring files as computer equipment is upgraded and standards change.)

For the unplanned slice-of-life and people photos that I like to make, small digicams are too slow to use and have mediocre viewfinders and too much depth of field, while digital SLRs are too big. The kind of camera that best suits my needs is the old-fashioned compact rangefinder, for which there is not yet a good digital substitute. I suspect that such an substitute will be introduced eventually, and when it is another bunch of film diehards will painlessly convert. This kind of switch-over should occur with increasing frequency as photographic subspecialties catch up with technological advances in the mass market.

However, some people will probably continue to prefer film, if only for its archival properties. For this reason alone it seems likely that film, particularly silver-based B&W film, will be available for the foreseeable future, even if only as a boutique item.

Also note that whatever cameras people use, the files generated by scanning film are practically the same as digicam files. And note that Photoshop and similar software are already well on their way to replacing the traditional darkroom. In other words, much professional and high-end hobby photography has already been digital for years, so does it really matter what kinds of cameras were used to produce all those digital files?

The boy seems a bit, um, hostile.

(Via gefen)