Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

The Russian bear is back

Sunday, August 10th, 2008

UPDATE: Zbignew Brzezynzki may be starting to rejoin the earth after years far to the left of 99% of humanity.

The Cold war ended with the fall of the USSR in 1991. Boris Yeltsin courageously stopped the KGB apparatchiks from taking back control of the country. Unfortunately, Boris was a drunk with lots of corrupt relatives. His administration was riddled with corruption and it is widely suspected that there was a deal between Yeltsin and Putin to leave Yeltsin alone as long as Putin was given a cloak of legitimacy.

Having surrounded himself with corrupt cronies and financiers, Yeltsin paid only lip service to fighting crime and corruption. He presided over an unprecedented deterioration in Russia’s internal security and law enforcement. The population became disgruntled as bandits ruled the streets and businesses, while businesspeople, foreign and domestic, balked at investing. Taken together, the failures of the post-communist transformation and the inability to construct even a minimal social safety net lowered the already meager standard of living of tens of millions of Russians and helped make Boris Yeltsin as unpopular at the end of his term as Mikhail Gorbachev was at the end of his.

At first, Putin cleaned house.

Thus far, Putin’s political and public relations instincts have been astute. He was filmed giving out hunting knives to Russian officers and troops in the trenches of Chechnya the morning of New Year’s Day, when most Russians were sound asleep after having spent the night toasting the new millennium. He sent Yeltsin’s daughter, Tatyana Diachenko, packing on his first day on the job. The notorious Diachenko not only was her father’s Kremlin advisor, but is also alleged to have spearheaded many of the corrupt financial dealings attributed to the Yeltsin family. He fired Yeltsin’s presidential property manager, Pavel Pavlovich Borodin, who is now being sought by police in Switzerland. He demoted Nikolai Aksenenko, first deputy prime minister in charge of the economic portfolio, to preside over the railways, while elevating a tough debt negotiator, former Finance Minister Mikhail Kasyanov, to the No. 1 economic position. Watching their dynamic new acting president, many Russians quoted their proverb, “a new broom, which sweeps clean.”

However, Putin is not a democrat.

Vladimir Putin will be strongly tempted to revert to the traditional paths of autocracy and statism. As a former intelligence officer and head of the secret police, he has the right profile to emerge as a centralizing, strong leader in the tradition of Peter the Great, or even worse, Nicholas I, the preeminent monarch-policeman of the first part of the nineteenth century. Putin’s entry into the political scene is inescapably connected to the war in Chechnya, which, the critics say, was engineered to launch the “Putin for President” campaign. He may see both the fate of Russia and his rule through the traditional prism of military prowess and conquest.

Russia has two major problems; one is a very low birthrate.

The Russian population is expected to drop by 700,000 in 2001 and will
total 144.5 million, according to the state statistics committee quoted by
Interfax.

Over the past eight years, Russia’s population has decreased by close to
two percent with 2.8 million fewer people, according to official figures.

Deaths far outpace births by a ratio of 14.7 in 1,000 compared to 8.4.

Only 1.2 million children are born each year in Russia, well below the two
million needed to keep the population at existing levels, said Kulakov.

The second is an unstable economy, dependent on energy exports. Attempts to build a modern, high technology sector is failing, stifled by the authoritarian rule of Putin and the FSB (formerly KGB).

But the big problem for high technology in Russia is neither money nor ideas. It is the country’s all-pervasive bureaucracy, weak legal system and culture of corruption. This may explain why the nanotechnology corporation has so far found only one project to invest in (and that is registered in the Netherlands). The share of high-tech products in Russia’s exports is only 0.6%, “a shameful rate” according to Vladimir Fortov, a member of the Russian Academy of Science. Over the past 15 years, he says, Russia has not brought to the market a single significant drug. The average age of Russia’s scientists is well over 50. One of the main commercial activities of Russian research institutes is leasing or selling their property and land.

Now, Putin seems to be adopting the methods of Stalin, those of armed robbery writ large, as he seeks to control Georgia which has major pipelines and other economic attractions. The crisis has been building for months and exploded this weekend, probably to coincide with the Olympics. The USSR did much the same in the past, invading and crushing Hungary when Britain and France invaded Egypt in 1956. Unfortunately, we allowed a precedent in Kosovo during the breakup of Yugoslavia.

Georgia’s president, Mikheil Saakashvili, said Russia’s ambitions were even more extensive. He declared that Georgia was in a state of war, and said in an interview that Russia was planning to seize ports and an oil pipeline and to overthrow his government.

That is so much cheaper than actually building them. The oil price rise the past year has given Russia a huge boost in its cash flow but that may not be a long term solution to Putin’s problems. He may have decided to punish the west for its support of Georgia by interrupting the pipelines that pass through Georgia and precipitate a crisis in Europe. That would frighten Europe but would it solve his problems ?

Oil and gas have been the foundation of the regime of Vladimir Putin, Russia’s outgoing president, and are also a preoccupation of his successor, Dmitry Medvedev, who was chairman of Gazprom, the state-controlled gas giant. The flow of petrodollars has created a sense of stability, masked economic woes and given Russia more clout on the world stage. Yet the malaise afflicting its most important industry is almost entirely man-made. “Geologically, there is no problem,” says Anisa Redman, an analyst at HSBC, a bank.

In principle, Russia’s bonanza could continue for years: it has the world’s seventh-biggest oil reserves, at 80 billion barrels, according to BP, a British oil firm. And oilmen reckon there are 100 billion more barrels to find—“the biggest exploration prize in the world”, in the words of Robert Dudley, the boss of TNK-BP, BP’s Russian joint venture. But Russia has regulated the industry so poorly that production is falling despite the soaring oil price.

“Tax is the major impediment,” says Ms Redman. The government levies an export duty of 65% at prices over $25 a barrel. Add to that various corporate, payroll and production taxes, oilmen complain, and the state creams off as much as 92% of profits. Executives at TNK-BP have argued that rising costs across the oil industry will make many investments in Russia unprofitable unless the tax regime is changed. As it is, TNK-BP accounts for a fifth of BP’s production, but only a tenth of its profits.

The Russians still do not understand economics and that ignorance may be costly for everybody. In the meantime, it emphasizes the risks of a callow youth like Obama as president. McCain has been to Georgia multiple times and knows the people involved. He has never bought the line that Putin is a modern statesman. Obama supporters, as is so often the case, blame America and America’s friends for Russia’s actions. Those 1500 people killed thus far were “inconvenient.”

Administration officials have regularly cautioned Mr. Saakashvili to be patient on Abkhazia and South Ossetia, even as they have given private and public reassurances about NATO membership. It would, in fact, be surprising if Georgia had consciously provoked a war in South Ossetia, since Mr. Saakashvili understands that doing so would almost certainly put an end to the NATO bid; indeed, Russia may well calculate that NATO will continue to exclude Georgia so long as the country is embroiled in hostilities along its border.

Georgia’s predicament seems very simple from the vantage point of Tbilisi — 1921, 1938 — but extremely complicated from a great remove. Russia threatens Georgia, but Georgia threatens Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Russia looks like a crocodile to Georgia, but Georgia looks to Russia like the cats’ paw of the West. One party has all the hard power it could want, the other all the soft. And now, while the world was looking elsewhere, the frozen conflict between them has thawed and cracked. It will take a great deal of care and attention even to put things back to where they were before.

It will take a firm hand to avoid losing, not only Georgia, but Ukraine to Russian revanchism. Obama does not have that firm hand.

The intent of the Russian aggression is becoming more and more obvious. Georgia’s response is likely to be unsuccessful.

Blessed be The One

Friday, August 1st, 2008

This new McCain ad is the best yet. He has somebody doing these that is the best I’ve seen. The producer and writer must be geniuses because this is viral marketing at its best. Over a million people have viewed this ad on You Tube and it’s only just out. Of course, to the Obama people it will be racist but they are only reacting to effective tactics, and not very well at that.

A You-Tube campaign

Friday, July 25th, 2008

Obama says different things to different groups and often gets away with it. He gets into trouble, however, when he says things on camera. Here are two clips of Obama saying opposite things about the same topic. I hope someone is collecting these things and will use them to run political ads during the fall campaign. There are already a few examples. One is here.

Obama is a gaffe machine saying, for example, that he has campaigned in 57 states and will be dealing with world leaders as president for 8 to 10 years.

Obama supporters, like Alan Colmes on Fox News, tries to counter with alleged McCain gaffes. One was his statement that Iran was supporting Sunni terrorist groups. He was accused of not knowing that Iran is Shiite and will not cooperate with Sunnis. That is untrue. Secondly, this week, Colmes tried to make an issue of McCain saying that the Surge was responsible for the Anbar Awakening. This story is all over the left wing blogs. What they don’t understand is that “The Surge” was not the addition of more troops to Iraq but a change in strategy that required more troops to carry out. That change coincided with the Anbar Awakening. The video linked to by the piece above is absolutely accurate. It is the political left’s ignorance of military strategy that is on exhibition, not McCain’s error.

Here is more on McCain’s statement.

“Yesterday,” a reporter asked McCain, “you suggested that the surge in Iraq predated the Anbar rebellion, and actually the Anbar rebellion came a couple of months previously. Did you misspeak, or did you have something else in mind?”
McCain said that he was referring to the successful counterinsurgency strategy in the Anbar — the co-option of the Sunni sheiks — which provided a model for troops who later surged into the country.
“First of all, a surge is really a counter-insurgency strategy,” McCain said.
I’ll separate that, because McCain says it often. Most of us equate the surge with troop levels, but for McCain, it has always been about a strategy; to executive the strategy, more troops were needed.
Colonel McFarland, in Anbar province, McCain said, “had already initiated that strategy in Ramadi by going in and clearing and holding in certain places. That is a counter-insurgency. And he told me at that time that he believed that that strategy, which is quote the surge, part of the surge, would be, would be, successful. So then, of course, it was very clear that we needed additional troops in order to carry out this insurgency.

Don’t expect to see anything about that from Obama supporters. You-Tube will define this campaign, both supporting and refuting what the candidates say. McCain is consistent and it should help him.

The consequences of a gun ban.

Thursday, July 17th, 2008

This article from the Daily Telegraph describes the process by which the British were stripped of the right to self defense.

Self defence, wrote William Blackstone, the 18th-century jurist, is a “natural right that no government can deprive people of, since no government can protect the individual in his moment of need”.

What changed ?

For almost 500 years, until 1954, England and Wales enjoyed a declining rate of violent crime. In the last years of the 19th century, when there were no restrictions on guns, there was just one handgun homicide a year in a population of 30 million people. In 1904 there were only four armed robberies in London, then the largest city in the world.

We still remember this reputation of Britain as a peaceable kingdom. The Lord of the Rings trilogy contrasted the peaceful Shire, inhabited by hobbits who were more concerned with warm hobbit holes, good food and smoking tobacco than with politics, with the harsh outside world. The books have been interpreted as allegorical comparison with Nazi Germany. What has happened since Tolkein wrote them ?

The practical removal of the right to self defence began with Britain’s 1920 Firearms Act, the first serious limitation on privately-owned firearms. It was motivated by fear of a Bolshevik-type revolution rather than concerns about householders defending themselves against robbers. Anyone wanting to keep a firearm had to get a certificate from his local police chief certifying that he was a suitable person to own a weapon and had a good reason to have it. The definition of “good reason”, left to the police, was gradually narrowed until, in 1969, the Home Office decided “it should never be necessary for anyone to possess a firearm for the protection of his house or person”.

Thus, crime was never the problem that led to the disarming of the population. Once guns were banned, the principle was extended to any potential weapon.

The 1953 Prevention of Crime Act made it illegal to carry in a public place any article “made, adapted or intended” for an offensive purpose “without lawful authority or reasonable excuse”. Any item carried for defence was, by definition, an “offensive” weapon.

Thus, it became illegal to defend yourself. The rule became to wait for the police to defend you. What if they didn’t arrive ?

Rather than permitting people to protect themselves, the authorities’ response to the recent series of brutal attacks on home-owners has been to advise people to get more locks and, in case of a break-in, retreat to a secure room – presumably the bathroom – to call the police. They are not to keep any weapon for protection or approach the intruder. Someone might get hurt. If that someone is the intruder the resident will be sued by the burglar and vigorously prosecuted by the state.

What was the result of this policy ?

At the same time as government demanded sole responsibility for protecting individuals, it adopted a more lenient approach toward offenders. Sentences were sharply reduced, few offenders served more than a third or a half of their term, and fewer offenders were incarcerated. Further, they were to be protected from their victims. Tony Martin, the Norfolk farmer jailed for killing one burglar and wounding another, was denied parole because he posed a danger to other burglars.

The “more guns, less crime” argument has been attacked in America as flawed research and the author of several of these studies has been vilified. What about the experience in Britain, far from the National Rifle Association?

This trade-off of rights for security has been disastrous for both. Crime has rocketed. A UN study in 2002 of 18 developed countries placed England and Wales at the top of the Western world’s crime league. Five years after the sweeping 1998 ban on handguns, handgun crime had doubled. As was forecast at the time, the effect of outlawing handguns has been that only outlaws have handguns.

The recent Heller decision has stimulated this debate once again. We will hear more about this issue in the months and years to come. Here is a Glenn Reynolds law review article on the future course of gun law litigation.

UPDATE: The original plaintiff, Heller, had his application denied today. The bureaucrats don’t give up that easily.

This is too good to miss

Thursday, July 10th, 2008

McCain should figure out a way to use this video in a commercial.

It’s just too good to miss. Plus Nozzle Rage is a good source. I’ve ordered Zubrin’s book.

Bush haters move on to history

Monday, June 30th, 2008

The author of a novel advocating the assassination of George Bush, has moved on to Churchill and Roosevelt. The book is Human Smoke and is an indictment of the Allies in World War II because they stood up to Hitler at last and refused to accept that final aggression. The author, apparently a pacifist, sets out to attack Churchill and Roosevelt but does it in a dishonest way. His novel, Checkpoint seems to have outraged even the New York Times, rather tolerant of most Bush-haters. The Booklist review gives a bit of the plot:

Jay and Ben are old friends who haven’t seen each other in a few years. A former teacher who has fallen on hard times, Jay is very, very upset about the war in Iraq. He has expressed his objections by marching in an antiwar demonstration in the nation’s capital, but the protest has had no effect. Now Jay has asked Ben, a writer currently working on a book about the cold war, to bring a tape recorder to a Washington, D.C., hotel room because Jay wants to talk about his decision to assassinate the president.

A columnist in The Independent has picked up on this pacifist nihilism and brought more light on this mindset.

Winston Churchill? Today we only remember his heroic opposition to Nazism. But while he was against gassing and tyranny in Europe, he was passionately in favour of it for “uncivilised” human beings whose riches he wanted to seize. In the 1920s, Iraqis rose up against British imperial rule, and Churchill as Colonial Secretary thought of a good solution: gas them. He wrote: “I do not understand this squeamishness… I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes.” It would “spread a lively terror”.

He does not mention, and may not even be aware of the fact that Churchill goes on to confirm that by “poisoned” he meant tear gas. He may not know it because he took the lines from Baker’s book above.

The correction (unacknowledged by the writers) is here.

“I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes,” Baker quotes, but if one returns to the original memorandum, found in the Churchill Papers in Cambridge, it goes on to make it clear that the idea was not to use “deadly gasses” against the enemy, but rather ones aimed at “making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory [i.e., tear] gas.” Churchill goes on to write: “The moral effect should be so good as to keep loss of life reduced to a minimum” and “Gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror yet would leave no serious permanent effect on most of those affected.”

I am belaboring this point because we have begun to see a similar pacifist nihilism in the presidential campaign. The attacks on John McCain’s military record, the refusal to see progress in Iraq, attempts to undercut the war on radical Islam (perhaps because some would rather lose than see Bush win anything), all seem to suggest that some have gone beyond politics to some sort of lunatic antipathy to American civil discourse. I think we have seen only the beginning of this.

Obama’s fairness doctrine

Monday, June 30th, 2008

Today, a number of anti-Obama blogs woke up to find they  had been banned by their hosting service. They were banned as a source of spam although the only thing they had been doing was posting anti-Obama messages. In Chicago, where Obama learned his political tactics, the Fairness Doctrine means shutting up your opponent.

In his first race for office, seeking a state Senate seat on Chicago’s gritty South Side in 1996, Obama effectively used election rules to eliminate his Democratic competition.

As a community organizer, he had helped register thousands of voters. But when it came time to run for office, he employed Chicago rules to invalidate the voting petition signatures of three of his challengers.

The move denied each of them, including incumbent Alice Palmer, a longtime Chicago activist, a place on the ballot. It cleared the way for Obama to run unopposed on the Democratic ticket in a heavily Democrat district.

“That was Chicago politics,” said John Kass, a veteran Chicago Tribune columnist. “Knock out your opposition, challenge their petitions, destroy your enemy, right? It is how Barack Obama destroyed his enemies back in 1996 that conflicts with his message today. He may have gotten his start registering thousands of voters. But in that first race, he made sure voters had just one choice.”

He just talks about transforming politics.

Tuskeegee

Sunday, May 4th, 2008

There is so much horse shit being put out about the Tuskeegee Study,  most recently this weekend, that it is time to add a few facts. Syphilis was a great scourge brought to Europe from the Americas by Columbus’ crew when they returned. It was ferocious when the epidemic was still new. With time, the manifestations of the disease were less horrible but it was very common. By 1600, one third of Paris was infected. With time, as in all infectious diseases, the virulence declined but it was still a serious disease.

The first successful treatment was with the use of Mercury, first described by Paracelsus who cured nine syphlitics with mercury in 1530. He also provided the first accurate description of the disease and described its manifestations. For centuries after, it was said “One night with Venus may lead to a life with Mercury.” The treatment was onerous and needed to be repeated periodically for life. The discovery of mercurial diuretics in the 1920s came about accidentally through the treatment of syphlis cases with heart failure from syphlitic heart lesions. When I was a medical student, the only powerful diuretics we had were still mercurials.

In 1905, Paul Ehrlich was searching for an antibiotic for syphilis when he stumbled upon the use of organic arsenic. Eventually, by 1910, he announced the new drug called compound 606, or Salvarsan. This was more effective than Mercury and moderately less toxic but it was not the “silver bullet” that he had been searching for. Of course, we currently have hysteria over tiny doses of Mercury in vaccines to prevent contamination.

In 1932, the Public Health Service began a study of negro males who were infected with syphilis. No one was “given” syphilis. This Wikipedia entry, while somewhat biased in tone, gets the facts right in the beginning. The group of subjects was divided into those with early signs, such as genital lesions, and those who were in what is called the “latent phase.” Those with early signs were treated with arsenicals. There was no evidence that latent phase syphilis was treatable.

Instead, we get this sort of thing;
And, you know, you can explain them, as he explained, for instance, the idea that the government in fact would infect blacks with AIDS, by saying, well, remember Tuskegee, when the government actually did infect blacks with syphilis. He does come from a different era, a different age. And so the way he presents himself is very different.

from Sally Quinn of the Washington Post who should know better but probably doesn’t do science.

The discovery and manufacture of penicillin came about in the 1940s and by 1950 there are serious questions about whether treatment should have been offered to those men. The  treatment of tertiary syphilis, especially neurosyphilis, requires very high doses of penicillin, doses that were not available until after 1950.
Penicillin remains the treatment of choice for all stages of syphilis, although it penetrates the blood brain barrier poorly. Treatment with intramuscular benzathine penicillin 2.4 million units stat, or 600,000 units procaine penicillin daily does not produce treponemicidal levels within the CSF. However, the incidence of neurosyphilis is low in immunocompetent patients treated with such regimens during early syphilis.

In late syphilis, it is the policy to treat everyone.

Does penicillin cure tertiary syphilis ? Sometimes.

Should the “Tuskegee Boys” have been offered penicillin in 1950 and after ? Yes.

Would it have made a difference ? I don’t know.

I do know that Reverend Wright and Sally Quinn are ignoramuses although he may actually know better.

Somebody Nancy Pelosi should meet

Saturday, April 19th, 2008

Nancy Pelosi has blocked the Columbia Free Trade Agreement from coming to a vote in Congress. This kills it for the year in spite of the fact that it was signed several years ago, then renogotiated to satisfy Democrat complaints. Here is a Washington Post interview with the president of Columbia. Maybe Nancy Pelosi should read it.

Eveyone knows this is an election year kabuki dance that Democrats must perform to satisfy dinosaur trade unions that, having killed off the US auto industry, is now after the rest of our export based economy. Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager, Mark Penn is the latest victim. This is insanity but Democrat politics has its own internal rhythm that does not require logic.