Big Government

I can’t believe you said that, Secretary Clinton.

by

Now, I also think it’s important to take a little historical review. If you go on YouTube, you can see Sirajuddin Haqqani with President Reagan at the White House, because during the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan, the United States Government, through the CIA, funded jihadis, funded groups like the Haqqanis to cross the border or to, within Afghanistan, be part of the fight to drive the Soviets out and bring down the Soviet Union.
 
So when I meet for many hours, as I do, with Pakistani officials, they rightly say, “You’re the ones who told us to cooperate with these people. You’re the one who funded them. You’re the ones who equipped them. You’re the ones who used them to bring down the Soviet Union by driving them out of Afghanistan. And we are now both in a situation that is highly complex and difficult to extricate ourselves from.” That is how they see it.

– Remarks at the Kumpuris Distinguished Lecture Series: Audience Question and Answer Segment (Secretary Hillary Clinton)

Uh huh. Well they “see it” wrong and you very well know that, Madam Secretary. Zia directed the monies and toward the end, we attempted to work around the Pakistanis. You know the history. And you’ve seen the intelligence. Didn’t your own State Department sign off on the certification for Kerry-Lugar-Berman after the bin Laden raid? What’s worse? Supporting an insurgency during the Cold War when officials couldn’t see into the future with a crystal ball, or signing off on an aid package after this?

This New York Times report on the murder of a US soldier on May 14, 2007 by Pakistani troops in Teri Mangal is an absolute must read if you are interested in understanding the frustration and contempt for Pakistan that exists among those who have been warning of that nation’s duplicity and complicity in the murder of US, NATO, and Afghan troops.

– Long War Journal

Let’s review some more, shall we?

Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, Le Nouvel Observateur (France), Jan 15-21, 1998, p. 76:
 
Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs [“From the Shadows”], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?
 
Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
 
Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?
 
Brzezinski: It isn’t quite that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

excerpt via this Pundita blog post. Emphasis mine.

In order to have a relationship with Pakistan during the Cold War – and subsequently the War on Terror – various American officials and institutions had to, er, well, invest themselves in particular narratives. Nice to see Secretary Clinton continuing the tradition:

Back in January 2009, Secretary Clinton vowed to make development once again one of the pillars of America’s engagement as she said it would be an “equal partner” with diplomacy and defense. The so-called “3-Ds” would need AID to be “strengthened”, “adequately funded”, and ultimately given leadership after a decade of neglect and intentional weakening under the previous Secretary.

– Small Wars Journal

I don’t know what to think anymore. (I originally had something harsher here and then deleted it. I remain flabbergasted at her comments. Particularly given the history of the Clinton Administration during the ’90s. Everyone got it wrong on this one. Darn near everyone. The Americans weren’t the only ones to get it wrong, either. The Pakistanis were the main supporters of the jihadists – and for their own purposes. It’s simply not true that the Generals and others were passive observers. Neither were any of the neighbors. Everyone’s always “played” in that neighborhood. The poor Afghans. The poor mothers and fathers of young people in Afghanistan just learning how far the foreign policy establishment in Washington is willing to go in order to preserve cherished ideological myths – and self-importance or institutional funding, a skeptic might say.)

Rethinking Unions II: A Time to Kill (Firms)

by

Previous in the series:
I

I started off this series hoping to get some good comments that would further my rethink. Jim Bennet is an articulate representative of a current in the comments – “The first thing is for the union to realize that the primary interest of the union is to see that the employer survives and prospers.” I disagree but only because it ignores an important case, when employers do not deserve to survive.

I am starting from the premise that in capitalism’s 3 legged stool, there is no privileged leg. Capital, labor, rents, all have their heroes and their villains. All need to have the heroes promoted and the villains marginalized. This line of cooperativist thinking denies the need for villain marginalization. But sometimes we do need to kill off businesses. Sometimes we have too many firms and the weak need to go to the wall while salvaging their resources as much as possible. If either hero promotion or villain marginalization processes are weak or missing, the capitalist system suffers economic performance drops. We must have robust systems to more efficiently kill firms that need to die and labor can play an important role in that capitalist process. Labor needs to judge capital and act accordingly.

Let’s take a look at the UAW, for example and grant that everything they say about GM management is true. Let’s stipulate that collectively, GM management is unimaginative, largely made up of poor planners, make repeated bad decisions over a span of decades, and are generally responsible for running an American icon into the ground. So why did the union let them get away with it when they could have destroyed GM and served their members better? Stipulating that the UAW is entirely right about its indictment of GM management should have led to entirely different behaviors and would have largely saved Detroit and helped keep the rust out of what we now call the rust belt.

The UAW should have looked ahead to the inevitable train wreck and politically encouraged company formation in the areas where its members lived. It should have reworked its own structure so that union members moving to “nonunion” firms didn’t lose out with the union by it. It should have educated its workforce on the need to pass judgment on bad management in a practical sense and the importance of creating enough jobs at good employers so there would be sufficient lifeboats at other firms when GM eventually collapsed under the weight of its poor decisions. The UAW did none of this. That’s a good reason why the UAW needs to be replaced.

The UAW should have encouraged the creation of laws to allow quick approval of low volume models so that custom car builders in the Midwest would be a constant challenge to “the big three” and increase the chances of an American firm with better management rising up on a consistent series of hits and replacing GM. That could happen either by simply outcompeting GM or as NeXT software did to Apple by the guppy swallowing the whale and giving the larger company a management transplant.

A proper representative of labor would be agitating against laws restricting the sale of automobiles to expensive dealership networks, for reducing the cost of approving cars so they can be driven on public roads, and generally for pro-startup legislation. A proper representative of labor would pressure local municipalities and counties to constantly diversify their job base so that no matter how badly a particular company did, members wouldn’t be stuck in dying towns with few job prospects.

A capitalist system that had unions like this would have improved growth prospects, healthier communities, and be much more hostile to bad management wasting resources and serving their shareholders poorly. It makes you wonder why nobody’s made this sort of organization.

Rethinking Unions

by

As they currently stand, Unions are dangerous dinosaurs. But that doesn’t mean that worker interests have no need for structures that serve their interest. If we’re serious about believing in liberty, we need to address how to create viable, sustainable, superior worker organizations. They might just end up keeping the “union” label if the brand isn’t irredeemably sullied by its present users.

So what characteristics would this new type of organization have?

Sustainably low cost
Concentrate on proactively improving worker situations
Unabashedly pro-capitalist
Interventionist in secondary education, aligning student production better with worker needs.

Anybody have some other features?

So This Is How Democracy Dies

by

[youtube GNAHjsAnTd4 How Liberty Dies]

How is this for a headline?

“Key Democrats call for Ending Democracy”

Some people subscribe to the idea that politicians are stupid. They shoot from the hip until reined in by their consultants during election season. There is probably a great deal of truth to that. On the other hand, the use of the “trial balloon” is a well-tested technique for gauging public reaction to an idea.

With that in mind, I submit today’s WSJ’s “Notable and Quotable” into evidence to let the jury decide.

“Most Americans complain that government is unresponsive to their wishes. But not everyone feels that way. In the space of two days, two prominent Democrats have called for less responsive government that ignores public input.
 
One of them, former White House Budget Director Peter Orszag, penned a piece this week in the New Republic arguing, as the title says, “Why we need less democracy.” Orszag wrote that “the country’s political polarization was growing worse—harming Washington’s ability to do the basic, necessary work of governing.” His solution? “[W]e need to minimize the harm from legislative inertia by relying more on automatic policies and depoliticized commissions for certain policy decisions. In other words, radical as it sounds, we need to counter the gridlock of our political institutions by making them a bit less democratic.” . . .
 
[S]imilar comments by Gov. Bev Perdue, D-N.C., are far more troubling. “I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won’t hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover,” Perdue told a Rotary Club gathering in suburban Raleigh this week. “I really hope that someone can agree with me on that.”

Gaffe or Trial Balloon?

Read more

Boomers vs X’ers

by

This is along the same lines as Dan’s post below about generation differences. My friend John from Colorado put it together and it pithily sums everything up.

Cross posted at LITGM