September 25, 2009, 8:00 a.m.
Trying to Make Sense of Why We're in Afghanistan
(brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
Are we at war, once again, because of our need to control sources of oil, gas, pipeline and oil tanker routes and ports?
I don't know. How could I? I'm just a morning blogger. But as I try to think through what we're doing in Afghanistan, and why, it makes a lot more sense than anything else I can come up with.
Frankly, I think there might be more popular support for the Afghanistan war than there is now, a willingness to accept the loss of life and hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars, if Presidents Bush and Obama had candidly sold the effort to the American people on that basis. But I can understand their reluctance to take the risk that explanation would be spun by their political opponents into "going to war for oil company profits."
Consider what they have been telling us.
"Mission shift and creep" is usually not the military's creation. The Powell Doctrine calls for a very precise articulation of what the problem is, why a military presence is appropriate to its solution, exactly what the military is being asked to do, what resources that requires, the metrics for knowing whether it has ever been "successful," and an exit strategy. When that process is not followed, when the explanations for a war continue to shift over time, I have to assume it's the result of something done by the civilians in the chain of command.
Wrong Country. At the outset, however irrational, Americans were told we were bombing Afghanistan because of the destruction of the Twin Towers on 9/11 -- something done with Saudi personnel and financial resources -- rather than going to war with Saudi Arabia. For awhile we were there to get Osama bin Laden. As the years went by less and less was said of that goal. At one time we were driving al Qaeda out of Afghanistan. If that's our purpose we can declare victory and come home, because both bin Laden and such al Qaeda as there may be in the region appear to be in Pakistan, not Afghanistan.
Safe Havens. More recently we're said to be there because we want to deny al Qaeda the "safe haven" of Afghanistan. There are at least three things wrong with this rationale. (1) To the extent al Qaeda has a safe haven in the region, it's in Pakistan not Afghanistan. (2) All al Qaeda needs to plan the next terrorist attack is a rented apartment in any city in the world. (3) Aside from Saudi Arabia, al Qaeda never has been a single nation's effort; the "war on terrorism" has never been a conventional war between "nations." al Qaeda is, or can be, everywhere and anywhere at any time. To the extent it wants or needs a territory to train terrorists there are a lot of countries available besides Afghanistan. So even if we could keep every last actual and potential member of al Qaeda out of Afghanistan we would not have denied them "safe havens." See, Michael Evans, "Al-Qaeda finds three safe havens for terror training," The Times (of London), July 2, 2008 ("Al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden’s terrorist organisation, driven out of Afghanistan and defeated in Iraq, is re-emerging in strength in three alternative safe havens for training, operational planning and recruiting – Pakistan, Somalia and Algeria – according to Western intelligence and defence sources").
Drug War. There was a time when the military effort was said to be a part of our "war on drugs," as Afghanistan is the world's major source of the poppy that becomes heroin -- including America's supply. If that's our goal we should turn it over to the Taliban, because when they were in charge they pretty successfully dried up the drug trade; what we've doing has caused it to flourish.
Nation Building. We've sometimes said we are there to build a thriving economy and democracy for Afghanistan. But this is less a "country" than it is a collection of largely uneducated members of regional tribes and clans held together by war lords, riddled with corruption, with virtually no economy (aside from drugs), lacking basic infrastructure, and with a history of repression of women -- united in little more than their (understandable) opposition to invaders and occupying forces (formerly the Russians, and now us).
So how is that mission working for us? Not well -- as knowledgeable folks were predicting from the outset. Our most recent big effort at democracy-building, a national election, has resulted in revelations of corruption, thousands of apparently fraudulent votes, intimidation of voters, and war lords "delivering" votes based on deals -- thereby creating greater divisiveness than existed before, and greater American dissatisfaction with "our guy in Kabul," Hamid Karzai.
I could go on, but you get the point.
(Little) Benefit-(Enormous) Cost Analysis. None of the explanations for this "war effort" make much sense. And even if they did, the benefit-cost analysis fails. That is to say, given America's priorities at the moment -- or any other moment for that matter -- is whatever good we might get out of Afghanistan (and what might that be?) worth the hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of coalition and Afghan lives it has, is and will cost us over the additional decades of what is already America's longest war? I don't think so, and I can't imagine anyone else honestly thinking so. See, "Safe Havens," Yglesias Think Progress, September 23, 2009 ("what I really haven’t seen is anyone attempt to seriously lay out some kind of cost-benefit analysis of how important this whole Afghanistan situation really is relative to what I’m being told it would take to 'win.'").
Which brings me to oil and gas.
Let me acknowledge at the outset, in case you haven't noticed, that this is a blog entry not a doctoral dissertation. Some of what I've picked up and refer to below -- especially when it involves generalized assertions -- may be untrue. On the other hand, when it involves specific historical or geological facts and appears in a number of sources much of it seems credible.
Let's start with some excerpts from "Pipelineistan," written in 2005. You may want to read the whole article; the source is linked below these passages.
War against terrorism? Not really. . . .
A quick look at the map is all it takes. It's no coincidence that the map of terror in the Middle East and Central Asia is practically interchangeable with the map of oil. . . .
Pipelineistan is the golden future: a paradise of opportunity in the form of US$5 trillion of oil and gas in the Caspian basin and the former Soviet republics of Central Asia. In Washington's global petrostrategy, this is supposed to be the end of America's oil dependence on [OPEC]. . . .
Afghanistan itself has some natural gas in the north of the country, near Turkmenistan. But above all it is ultra-strategic: positioned between the Middle East, Central Asia and South Asia, between Turkmenistan and the avid markets of the Indian subcontinent, China and Japan. Afghanistan is at the core of Pipelineistan.
The Caspian states hold at least 200 billion barrels of oil, and Central Asia has 6.6 trillion cubic meters of natural gas . . .. Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan are two major producers . . ..
The only export routes, for the moment, are through Russia. So most of the game consists of building alternative pipelines to Turkey and Western Europe, and to the east toward the Asian markets. India will be a key player. . . .
It's enlightening to note that all countries or regions which happen to be an impediment to Pipelineistan routes towards the West have been subjected either to a direct interference or to all-out war: Chechnya, Georgia, Kurdistan, Yugoslavia and Macedonia. To the east, the key problems are the Uighurs of China's far-western Xinjiang and, until recently, Afghanistan. . . .
In this geostrategic grand design, the Taliban were the proverbial fly in the ointment. The Afghan War was decided long before September 11. September 11 merely precipitated events. Plans to destroy the Taliban had been the subject of . . . discussions for months before September 11. There was a crucial meeting in Geneva in May 2001 . . .. The topic was raised again in full force at the Group of Eight (G-8) summit in Genoa, Italy, in July 2001 when India - an observer at the summit - also contributed its own plans.
Nor concidentally, Pipelineistan was the central topic in secret negotiations in a Berlin hotel a few days after the G-8 summit, between American, Russian, German and Pakistani officials. And Pakistani high officials, on condition of anonymity, have extensively described a plan set up by the end of July 2001 by American advisers, consisting of military strikes against the Taliban from bases in Tajikistan, to be launched before mid-October.
[O]nly nine days after Hamid Karzai's interim government took power in Kabul, Bush II appointed his special envoy to Afghanistan . . . Afghan-American Zalmay Khalilzad - a former aide to the Californian energy giant UNOCAL. . . . The so-called brand-new American "Afghan policy" is being conducted by people intimately connected to oil industry interests in Central Asia.
In 1997, UNOCAL led an international consortium - Centgas - that reached a memorandum of understanding to build a $2 billion, 1,275-kilometer-long, 1.5-meter-wide natural-gas pipeline from Dauletabad in southern Turkmenistan to Karachi in Pakistan, via the Afghan cities of Herat and Kandahar, crossing into Pakistan near Quetta. A $600 million extension to India was also being considered. The dealings with the Taliban were facilitated by the Clinton administration and the
Pakistani Inter Services Agency (ISI). But the civil war in Afghanistan would simply not go away. UNOCAL had to pull out.
American energy conglomerates, through the American Overseas Private Investment Corp (OPIC), are now resuscitating this and other projects. Already last October, the UNOCAL-led project was discussed in Islamabad between Pakistani Petroleum Minister Usman Aminuddin and American Ambassador Wendy Chamberlain. The exuberant official statement reads: "The pipeline opens up new avenues of multi-dimensional regional cooperation, particularly in view of the recent geopolitical developments in the region." . . .
UNOCAL also has a project to build the so-called Central Asian Oil Pipeline, almost 1,700km long, linking Chardzhou in Turkmenistan to Russian's existing Siberian oil pipelines and also to the Pakistani Arabian Sea coast. This pipeline will carry 1 million barrels of oil a day from different areas of former Soviet republics, and it will run parallel to the gas pipeline route through Afghanistan.
Khalilzad . . . was always a huge Taliban supporter [and] only abandoned the Taliban after Bill Clinton fired 58 cruise missiles into Afghanistan in August 1998 . . .. [O]ne day after the attack, UNOCAL put Centgas on hold - and two months later abandoned plans for the trans-Afghan pipeline.
A little more than a year ago, Khalilzad was reincarnated in print in The Washington Quarterly, now stressing his four main reason to get rid of the Taliban regime as soon as possible: Osama bin Laden, opium trafficking, oppression of the Afghan people and, last but not least, oil. . . .
He was a strident lobbyist for more US military aid to the mujahedeen during the anti-USSR jihad - campaigning for widespread distribution of Stinger missiles. . . .
But he was not rewarded with any promotions. The required Senate confirmation would raise extremely uncomfortable questions about his role as UNOCAL adviser and staunch Taliban defender. He was assigned instead to the National Security Council - no Senate confirmation required - where he reports to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.
Rice herself is a former oil-company consultant. During Bush I, from 1989-92, she was on the board of directors of Chevron, and was its main expert on Kazakhstan. Chevron has invested more than $20 billion in Kazakhstan alone. . . .
All American secretaries of state since World War II have been connected with the oil industry - except two: one of them is Colin Powell, but in his case the president, vice president and national security adviser are all part of the oil industry anyway.
So everybody in the ruling plutocracy knows the rules of the ruthless game: Central Asia is crucial to Washington's worldwide petro-strategy. So is a "friendly" government in Afghanistan - now led by . . . Hamid Karzai. . . .
As for US . . . media - from TV networks to daily newspapers - they just exercise self-censorship and remain mute about all of these connections.
Pepe Escobar, "The War for Pipelineistan," Asia Times, January 26, 2005.
Here are excerpts from another account, unfortunately equally devoid of footnotes or other citations to sources:
As soon as the Soviets discovered the vast Caspian Sea oilfields in the late 1970's, they attempted to take control of Afghanistan to build a massive north-south pipeline system to allow the Soviets to send their oil directly through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Indian Ocean seaport. The result was the decades long Soviet-Afghan war. The . . . U.S. government saw the danger of a Russian north-south pipeline and the CIA trained and funded armed terrorist groups, including Osama bin Laden, who defeated the Soviets in the late 1980's.
The Russians then tried to control the flow of oil and gas through its monopoly on pipelines. The Southern Asian Republics of the former Soviet Union--Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan--saw through this Russian monopolistic ploy and began to consult with Western companies.
The . . . U.S. government now plans to thrust further along the 40th parallel from the Balkans through these Southern Asian Republics of the former Soviet Union. The U.S. military has already set up a permanent operations base in Uzbekistan. The so-called anti-terrorist strategy is clearly designed to simultaneously consolidate control over Middle Eastern and South Asian oil, and contain and neutralize the former Soviet Union. With that strategy, Afghanistan is exactly where they need to be. . . .
Afghanistan will now become the base of operations in destabilizing, isolating, and establishing control over the South Asian Republics and the Middle-East. After the conquest of this area is complete and the permanent military posts are set up, they will begin construction of a pipeline through Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan to deliver petroleum to the Asian market.
UNOCAL, the spearhead for Standard Oil interests, has been trying to build the north-south pipeline through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Indian Ocean for several decades. . . . The pipeline was to stretch 1,271 km from Turkmenistan's Dauletabad fields to Multan in Pakistan at an estimated cost of $1.9 billion. An additional $600 million would have brought the pipeline to energy-hungry India. . . .
UNOCAL cut off its earlier agreement with the Taliban in 1998 when it became clear that the Taliban could not control all of Afghanistan and provide a stable political environment for a north-south pipeline construction project. It was likely at this juncture that a new "war against terrorism" ploy was conceived by the . . . U.S. government. The "war against terrorism" in Afghanistan has come to a hiatus, with war-lords once again ruling the country, and the Bush administration has put their own man, Karzai, in power to control Afghanistan.
Karzai was a top adviser to UNOCAL during the negotiations with the Taliban to construct a Central Asia Gas (CentGas) pipeline from Turkmenistan through western Afghanistan to Pakistan. Karzai is the leader of the southern Afghan Pashtun Durrani tribe. A member of the mujaheddin that fought the Soviets during the 1980s, Karzai was a top contact for the CIA, maintaining close relations with CIA Director William Casey, Vice President George Bush, and their Pakistani Inter Service Intelligence (ISI) Service go-between. After the Soviet Union left Afghanistan, the CIA sponsored the relocation of Karzai and a number of his brothers to the U.S.
The real motives for the Bush administration's war in Afghanistan are clear for all to see. The U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan, Wendy Chamberlain, met with Pakistan's oil minister, Usman Aminuddin, in January, 2002 to continue plans for the north-south pipeline, encouraging the construction of Pakistan's Arabian Sea oil terminus for the pipeline.
President Bush says our military will continue its presence in Afghanistan, which means that while the U.N. forces serve as a paramilitary police force, U.S. soldiers will be guarding the construction of the north-south pipeline.
To assure that the pipeline project will proceed apace, the Afghani-American Zalmay Khalilzad, a previous member of the CentGas project, became President Bush's Special National Security Assistant. Khalilzad has recently been named presidential Special Envoy for Afghanistan. Khalilzad is a Pashtun and the son of a former government official under King Mohammed Zahir Shah. [H]e was a special liaison between UNOCAL and the Taliban government. Khalilzad also worked on various risk analyses for the project under the direction of National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, a former member of the board of Chevron.
Norman D. Livergood, "The New U.S.-British Oil Imperialism," Part I.
And for what it's worth, here's a brief and somewhat updated entry from Wikipedia:
The Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline (TAP or TAPI) is a proposed natural gas pipeline being developed by the Asian Development Bank. The pipeline will transport Caspian Sea natural gas from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan into Pakistan and then to India. Proponents of the project see it as a modern continuation of the Silk Road. The Afghan government is expected to receive 8% of the project's revenue.
The original project started in March 1995 when an inaugural memorandum of understanding between the governments of Turkmenistan and Pakistan for a pipeline project was signed. In August 1996, the Central Asia Gas Pipeline, Ltd. (CentGas) consortium for construction of a pipeline, led by Unocal was formed. On 27 October 1997, CentGas was incorporated in formal signing ceremonies in Ashgabat, Turkmenistan by several international oil companies along with the Government of Turkmenistan. In January 1998, the Taliban, selecting CentGas over Argentinian competitor Bridas Corporation, signed an agreement that allowed the proposed project to proceed. In June 1998, Russian Gazprom relinquished its 10% stake in the project. Unocal withdrew from the consortium on 8 December 1998.
The new deal on the pipeline was signed on 27 December 2002 by the leaders of Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan.[1] In 2005, the Asian Development Bank submitted the final version of a feasibility study designed by British company Penspen. Since the United States military overthrew the Taliban government, the project has essentially stalled; construction of the Turkmen part was supposed to start in 2006, but the overall feasibility is questionable since the southern part of the Afghan section runs through territory which continues to be under de facto Taliban control.
On 24 April 2008, Pakistan, India and Afghanistan signed a framework agreement to buy natural gas from Turkmenistan.[2]
The 1,680 kilometres (1,040 mi) pipeline will run from the Dauletabad gas field to Afghanistan. From there TAPI will be constructed alongside the highway running from Herat to Kandahar, and then via Quetta and Multan in Pakistan. The final destination of the pipeline will be the Indian town of Fazilka, near the border between Pakistan and India.[3]
"Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline," Wikipedia.
I don't know that I'm any happier about the war in Afghanistan now that I have some idea of what may be our real purpose for being there. But it's at least better than thinking we're taking all those lives, and spending hundreds of billions of dollars, for vague, shifting, unarticulated, irrational reasons designed to cover up what's really going on.
____________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source, even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
# # #
December 20, 2008, 7:05 a.m.
From Nation's Economy to Iowa City's Theaters
Approach Should be Similar
(Brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com)
What does Iowa City's Englert Theatre have in common with Detroit's General Motors? Read on.
President Bush left the White House long enough to kick the can down the road and then go back into hibernation. Notwithstanding what he represented to be his better instincts, he decided to hand over $17 billion of your money and mine to GM and Chrysler. In an ultimate example of the triumph of hope over experience, it's a "give me the money first, then I'll develop and show you my business plan" loan, made palatable to Republicans by virtue of its implicit goal of crushing one of America's formerly great unions, thereby carrying on the Reagan tradition begun with the air traffic controllers. Steven Mufson, David Cho and Cecilia Kang, "Aid in Hand, Clock Ticks for Detroit; With $17.4 Billion, a Mandate: Restructure by March or Go Bankrupt," Washington Post, December 20, 2008, p. A1.
I've written at length of the reasons why I think this approach is folly, and won't repeat again what's contained in the blog entries to which these links will take you:
Nicholas Johnson, "Trust Your Instincts, Auto Bailout's Terrible Idea," November 14, 2008
Nicholas Johnson, "Auto Bailout: An Open Letter to Congress," November 19, 2008
Nicholas Johnson, "Auto Loan Makes Too Few Dollars Even Less Sense," December 4, 2008
"What Was Wrong With the Auto Proposal?" in Nicholas Johnson,"Quick Fix for the Economy," December 12, 2008
Nicholas Johnson, "A Car in Every Garage," December 16, 2008
So, will things be better with Obama? If they know what's good for them, the jurors are going to stay out until at least May 2009 before coming to any judgment on that one.
Don't get me wrong, I'm as big an Obama enthusiast as anyone. That he is where he is today, that he was able to run a virtually error-free campaign, the good will he currently holds throughout the world, his clearly demonstrated ability to inspire us all, his seeming desire to turn down the rhetoric and work with all segments of America, are all indications that our hope has not yet been shown to have been misplaced.
But there are also troubling signs.
1. I share a little of the concern of former Bush advisor Peter Wehner, reported in a Washington Post appraisal of Obama's current cabinet and White House appointments: "Pragmatism has its place, but there are limits, as well. If you aren't anchored to a political philosophy, you get blown about, and government becomes ad hoc and you make it up as you go -- and if you're not careful, you begin to go in circles. . . . They're smart, they're well-educated, they're the upper crust, but the question is, do the parts make a whole, or is the whole less than the sum of the parts? . . . I'd buy somebody a dinner [if they] could define what Obamaism is as a political philosophy. If you don't have a political North Star, you can lose your way, and I'm not sure if these people have it."
2. "Deliberately structured dualism" was a phrase used to describe the split in jurisdiction over cable television regulation between the FCC and the cities. It might be used to describe what appears to be Obama's approach as well, but for the fact that he has more than two individuals, or newly created institutions, advising him on virtually any given subject. It will give him almost unlimited ability to go any direction with the four winds, which in some ways is an advantage. But it also multiplies by orders of magnitude the number of conflicts among personnel that will either create (a) more chaos in Washington than usual, or (b) a daily appointment schedule devoted to little more than smoothing ruffled feathers and dealing with threatened resignations. Alec MacGillis, "For Obama Cabinet, A Team of Moderates; In Picks, Few Hints About Policy Plans," Washington Post, December 20, 2008, p. A1.
So what does all this have to do with the Englert Theater?
The Englert, an Iowa City gem that owes its current existence and condition to a combination of taxpayer and wealthy donor support, shares with virtually every other institution in America today, like the auto industry, economic hard times.
It has proposed that the City provide it $50,000 a year for three years from community development funds (a source questioned by a number of those who have entered online comments to the Press Citizen's editorial on the subject).
Like the Big Three auto executives' position regarding "bailouts" and "investments," the paper believes, as its editorial headline proclaims, Editorial, "Englert request is an investment, not a bailout," Iowa City Press-Citizen, December 19, 2008 ("the theater's request isn't the theater staff calling for a new 'Save the Englert!' campaign. It's the staff asking the community to recognize the important work done by the Englert. Using economic development money for this purpose is as appropriate as was using $75,000 of economic development money as the city's portion of a loan program for local flood-affected businesses.").
I'd like to see Ford, Crysler and General Motors -- and the UAW -- prosper as they did in the 1950s and 1960s. I really would. And I'd certainly like to see the Englert prosper.
The questions are simply how best to do that in terms of both (a) efficiency and effectiveness, and (b) fairness to the rest of the national, or with regard to the Englert the local, economy.
The Englert is not the only theater in town, nor the only theater facing hard times. The arts are important to our community, not only in terms of the quality of life of its residents but also in terms of the overall economy -- our ability to attract and hold what Richard Florida calls the "creative class," the professionals and entrepreneurs who are a major source of any community's ability to build wealth.
But just as I've argued for an economy-wide approach to our current onrushing economic depression to end all depressions -- rather than merely providing trillions for bankers and billions for auto executives -- so too do I think we need a community-wide approach to the economic challenges confronting our local theaters.
In addition to the Englert, and the University-sponsored events formerly at Hancher and other venues, we have among others the City Circle Acting Company, Dreamwell Theatre, Iowa City Community Theatre, Rage Theatrics, Riverside Theatre, Young Footliters, and nearby theaters such as the Old Creamery Theatre in Amana, and in Cedar Rapids the Paramount Theatre, CSPS and Theatre Cedar Rapids.
Do I want the Englert to survive and thrive? Absolutely, I do. But not at the expense of the wealth of live theater we all benefit from in Iowa City and Eastern Iowa. Nor at the expense of the rest of Iowa City's arts. Nor at the expense of, beyond the arts, the entire local economy.
Fixing this one is a lot easier than dealing with the auto industry, folks. Let's take a broad view of the challenge and get on with it. There are tougher times ahead.
# # #
October 23, 2008, 10:00 a.m.
The Day's News
Coach Ferentz going to court; 200-signature petition going to President Mason; UI going to/for Johnson County Jail; Tampa Bay Rays put lie to "you get what you pay for;" 1967 flood warning more evidence of officials' need for Internet research training; UI wants explanation of the part of "public" in "public records" it doesn't understand; Movie "W" sympathetic to Bush
UI Sexual Assault Case: Year Two
Last week marked the beginning of the second year of the ongoing consequences of an alleged sexual assault on October 14, 2007. And there's still no light indicating an end to this dark tunnel.
Today's news contains three, count 'em three, stories related to the case.
Political Science Professor Michael Lewis-Beck's petition, calling for the reinstatement of peremptorily-fired former UI General Council, Marc Mills, has grown to 200 signatures, and will be presented to President Sally Mason late this afternoon. There will, presumably, be follow up stories regarding that meeting. Brian Morelli, "Prof will deliver petition to Mason; Wants Marcus Mills reinstated," Iowa City Press-Citizen, October 23, 2008, p. A1.
The trial of the two athletes charged with the assault is scheduled for November 3 (when any media coverage of the case will tend to be overwhelmed by the presidential election the next day). But there are pre-trial hearings as well, and one is scheduled for today. The issue is whether statements made by an accused to the likes of Coach Ferentz, Fred Mims, and EOD (Equal Opportunity and Diversity) folks should be admissible in evidence or, as the accused's lawyer contends, are in essence "involuntary confessions" that should be excluded. The coach, and other UI administrators are expected to attend and testify. Lee Hermiston, "Ferentz expected to testify at UI Sex Abuse Hearing," Iowa City Press-Citizen, October 23, 2008, p. A1.
Finally, the Des Moines Register and others have been asking the UI, "Just what part of 'public' don't you understand?" -- as in "public records" that happen to relate to a form of "student records." One federal law says they have to report to the public the campus crime statistics. Another says they must protect student "privacy." Some say the answer is to just remove the student/s' names from documents. Others say that's still a problem. Lee Rood, "U of I wants clarification after request for records," Des Moines Register, October 22, 2008 [and Iowa City Press-Citizen, October 23, 2008, p. A6].
800 Pound Gorilla Goes Directly to Jail, Does Not Pass 'Go' or Collect $200
When biking up town I often go along Capitol Street. I've noticed that it's mostly a University building and the Johnson County Jail, along with acres and acres of automobiles, but never examined it closely. So the other day, thinking about the jail expansion, I biked through the parking lots instead of on the street.
I've not been a proponent of a new jail, though I recognize there is some good data to support the idea. (My preference is for alternatives to incarceration, and multi-county regional jails for overflow -- the former already being done and the latter rejected out of hand). But as I was biking behind the jail the answer was obvious: If we're going to expand the jail wouldn't the cheapest, most efficient and least disruptive place to put it be right where it is now? There's sure plenty of unused space back there.
I forgot about that experience until I read in the Press-Citizen shortly thereafter that our Sheriff had been thinking the same thing -- only to be frustrated by an intransigent, dog-in-the-manger University refusing to sell. Brian Morelli, "UI interested in county jail space; Sheriff: Property's value estimated at $5M," Iowa City Press-Citizen, October 21, 2008, p. A3.
That story, in turn, reminded me of the frustration the residents of some of Iowa City's old neighborhoods have had, watching the University destroy neighborhoods that could be real assets for the University as single-family homes, a walking distance from the campus (if not, in some cases, right across the street), that would be ideal in attracting new and visiting faculty to Iowa.
The University is, and acts like, the local community's "800-pound gorilla" ("Where does an 800-pound gorilla sleep?" "Anywhere it chooses.")
Nor is the problem limited to the state's universities. It's an issue involving state property needs generally. It has implications for Iowa communities' quality of life, for local property tax revenues, for flood control and flood plains.
It needs to be reviewed by the Legislature. Hopefully it will be. Meanwhile, given the University's contributions to the population of that jail (see stories above), you'd think it could be a little more cooperative and considerate in working with the institution's needs for expansion.
"You get what you pay for"? Not quite. Baseball and university presidents' salaries
How many times have you heard someone -- often a salesperson -- say, "Well, you get what you pay for"? The suggestion is both (a) you should always buy "the best" (even though, for a given task or general purpose, the "good" or "better" may be your "best buy"), and (b) in seeking "the best" the most reliable guide is price. The higher the price the higher the quality.
Over the near-70 years I've been aware of the Consumers Union's (CU) Consumer Reports it has been putting the lie to that canard. If a purchase is important to you, a brief review of CU's hard copy and online independent (no advertising) research can ensure both (a) that what you end up buying will be of higher quality and come closer to your precise needs and wants, and (b) often significant savings.
In short, "you get what you take the time to research and comparison price."
This year we have yet another example from the world of baseball.
I'm not about to predict who will win the World Series. For my purposes at the moment it makes no difference. My point is that this year's American League pennant winner, now playing the Phillies in the World Series, is the Tampa Bay Rays.
So what's the significance of that? Simply that the Rays, with a total player payroll of $43 million, are second only to the Florida Marlins for the lowest salaries of any of the 30 teams in the major leagues. (The Phillies' payroll is $98 million; the Yankees, $209 million.) Art Spander, "Philadelphia Phillies go one game up against the Tampa Bay Rays in the World Series; So many subplots, so much artifice. So many cowbells and, honest, cownose rays swimming in a 10,000 gallon tank beyond the right field fence," [London] Telegraph, October 23, 2008, updated 11:06 a.m. (GMT).
"You get what you pay for?" Not if you're goal is to play in the World Series.
It's a story worth remembering next time we buy the "you get what you pay for" line when hiring university administrators (in the last couple weeks we hired another one in the $500,000-$1,000,000 range (salary, plus benefits, expenses, deferred compensation, etc.).
Iowa City has a relatively low cost of living compared with New York, San Francisco, or any of the other large urban areas with major universities. This is true for two reasons. (1) Some costs are lower: buying a house, going to a restaurant, or the theater. (2) Other costs can be avoided entirely: long commutes to work, parking costs, expensive (and expansive) wardrobes of clothes (see, e.g., Governor Sarah Palin's $150,000 campaign expense for two-months' clothes), or country club memberships.
Is there really no one in Eastern Iowa, the rest of Iowa, the rest of the United States or the world, who would be equivalent in experience, intelligence, social skills, judgment, and administrative ability to that of the administrators we now have, who would be willing to accept the prestige of such positions for a "living wage" of say, $150,000?
Just something to think about. Especially when thinking about the amount of money the CEOs who brought us this economic collapse have already taken for themselves.
[Literalists, statisticians, and baseball professionals should be sure to check out Professor Tung Yin's "Baseball and University Salaries," October 23, 2008, for a much more detailed analysis of the "you DO get what you pay for" theory, and a rebuttal of this portion of today's blog entry.]
1967 Report: "The 2008 Flood is Coming! The 2008 Flood is Coming!"
It turns out that Cedar Rapids officials were warned by the Corps of Engineers in 1967 that floods the seriousness of the one we all suffered this year -- or worse -- were well within the range of possibility.
The Report was referred to in a meeting of the Rebuild Iowa Advisory Commission's Task Force on Flood Plain Management and Hazard Mitigation. Said member Rob Hogg, state Senator from Cedar Rapids, "I've worked on these issues, and I was just shocked that there was a study that I never knew about." Rob Boshart, "Corps Warned of Risk in 1967; Engineers Predicted 'Perfect Storm,'" The Gazette, October 23, 2008, p. A1.
I don't mean to be critical of Senator Hogg, or others who expressed shock at the discovery, but it does illustrate one of my concerns.
When I used to serve on the local school board I would observe "with some 15,000 local school districts in America, it is highly unlikely that there is any challenge we confront that has not been experienced elsewhere, studied, resolved, written up and made available on the Internet."
I'm not sure that's true of this 1967 Report (though there would have been other ways to find it).
Of course it's good to talk things through and share personal anecdotes, opinions and intuition. But it is so much more efficient and productive to, first, do some basic research to find "best practices" from others (without the need to pay hefty "consultants'" fees).
I have always been amazed at the public officials who will willingly take two or four days from work to attend a conference, at considerable public expense, and rationalize the time and expense by citing how much they learn there. And yet they won't invest a half hour or less looking for the answers they need from the billions of Web sites, government and academic reports available to them for free -- and often Google-accessible in far less than a minute.
Movie "W" Sympathetic to Bush
Saw "W" last evening. It's sure not a political propaganda film that George Bush would want to use if he were running for re-election. But neither is it the kind of Saturday-Night-Live-style comic caricature we've seen so much of regarding our president. It won't alter by much your present evaluation of the kind of president he's been. But it will give you some additional sad and sympathetic understanding of why.
# # #
May 11, 2008, 7:30 a.m.
Best Mother's Day Gift? World Peace
So, Don't "Send in the Marines," Send in the Musicians
At the risk of sounding like a candidate for Miss America with my appeal for "world peace" here are some thoughts during and following a CNN presentation last evening (Saturday, May 10, 7:00 p.m. CT). The program is scheduled to run again this evening (May 11) at both 7:00 and 10:00 p.m. CT.
[Photo credit: BBC.] It was a follow-up by Christiane Amanpour -- a reporter for whom I have enormous admiration -- on the dramatic story of the New York Philharmonic's performance in North Korea earlier this year. CNN Special Investigations Unit, Amanpour Reports Notes from North Korea. And see, Christiane Amanpour, "Behind the Scenes: Amanpour's Notes from North Korea," cnn.com/asia, May 8, 2008, with links to photos and videos. Here is a video of the concert.
I've come to have a lot of respect for the best and the brightest in our U.S. military -- largely for the informed, rational and analytical approach they bring to issues of war and peace. It is the civilians in the White House and Congress who want to "send in the Marines," "kick some butt," or "nuke 'em" at the slightest provocation who most concern me. Notwithstanding our constitutional tradition of "civilian control of the military," the contrast between those approaches is what's given rise to my mostly joking suggestion that what we need is "military control of the civilians."
I wrote at length echoing their cool caution prior to our latest foray of folly into the Middle East. (See, list of my articles and speech texts at "Terrorism and the War in Iraq.") The military knows better than most of us that "the military option" is simply not appropriate for many of the international missions our country needs to undertake. (It is in some instances, as I once described for an earlier president, "like trying to play basketball on a football field.") It can even be self-defeating -- as in Iraq, where our presence has ended up encouraging the recruitment of terrorists and increasing the number, reach and force of their tactics -- thereby further destabilizing the Middle East, harming our national security and making us less safe rather than more.
No less a military expert than General David Petraeus said over a year ago, "There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq . . .." "No Military Solution to Iraq, U.S. General Says," cnn.com, March 9, 2007. [Photo credit: CNN.]
Senator Barack Obama shares this perspective and insight:
“I think we all have to recognize that we’re not going to achieve a military solution in Iraq, . . .. We have got to redouble our diplomatic efforts, internally as well as externally. . . . It is my judgment—and I think it’s the judgment of most military and political experts—that the best we can hope for, at this point, is to make sure that we are seeing some sort of accommodation [among] the various factions. The only leverage we have to encourage those factions to start coming to the [negotiating] table is if we say we are not going to be there in an open-ended military commitment.”
Joe Conason, "Bush Fantasy, Obama Reality," The New York Observer, March 25, 2007 (quoting from a Larry King Live interview).
Meanwhile, Senator Clinton, presumably in her effort to demonstrate that she has "passed the commander in chief test" -- although possibly just in an effort to put the lie to Elayne Boosler's assertion that, "When women are depressed they either eat or go shopping. Men invade another country." -- expresses a different view:
Mrs. Clinton . . . in an interview on ABC last week [said], “I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran,” . . . when she was asked what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons. “In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them,” she added.
Nazila Fathi, "Iran Protests to U.N. About Clinton Comments," New York Times, May 1, 2008.
Ms. Amanpour's shared insights about North Korea involve far more than one evening's concert -- indeed, among other things, she was invited to see a nuclear facility. It's a country about which we all need to know a great deal more than we do -- as we recently discovered about a number of countries in the Middle East. One hour of television -- even an hour with Christiane Amanpour -- won't tell us all we need to know. One concert won't bring "peace in our time," an open society in North Korea, or feed millions of North Koreans. But it's a start, a useful start.
North Korea and Iraq were both on President Bush's list of countries in "the axis of evil" (a characterization, incidentally, we should not be surprised to discover was not well received by the North Korean people). For one we said, "send in the Marines!" (over the protest of the Marines). For the other we said, "send in the musicians."
Which do you think has worked best?
Senator Hillary Clinton aside, it does seem that Elayne Boosler is closer to the truth. Women have tended to be in the forefront of peace efforts around the world and over the years. I don't know why. It may be because of something related to what I call "the natural superiority of women." It may be that if men had to go through childbirth to bring those young soldiers into the world they, too, would value their lives more highly.
In any event, there it is. Hats off to Christiane Amanpour, Elayne Boosler, and their three billion female colleagues around the world.
Thank you all, and
Happy Mother's Day!
# # #
