"There's no better regulator than a competitive marketplace" is certainly a truism... if the marketplace is perfectly competitive and the consumers are all perfectly informed.

Two very large "ifs" that are never true in the real world. There's a reason companies cut corners at the expense of consumers: they can get away with it. And if you don't cut corners, but your competitors are and are getting away with it, then you'll be left behind.

Posted at April 11, 2008 5:49 PM in response to Sputtering Toward the Rubber Room

The difference being that LA, Chicago, and NY all have a working rule of law, where the enforcers generally do not engage in sectarian violence themselves. The same can't be said of Iraq.

And ethnic parishes are a different matter altogether, since they can easily function as independent entities and have no inherent issues coexisting in the same area. How would two different ethnic militias patrolling the same neighborhood work?

Posted at June 12, 2007 2:11 PM in response to For Iraq: Community Based Security

Perhaps communal security might have worked at the start of the war in mixed neighborhoods, but it seems too late for that approach to work now, with all the distrust that has grown between Shia/Sunni/Kurds.

While I can't really comment on if there are any more preferable approaches or not, it seems like this would not do anything halt the steady segregation of Iraqi society. And might eventually destabilize the Kurdistan Northern Iraq due to the possibility of Turkish and Iranian military incursions if the self-governance up there fosters ambitions for a (re?)united Greater Kurdistan. But then again, haven't the Kurds essentially had self-governance of Northern Iraq since after the Gulf War?

Posted at June 11, 2007 5:16 PM in response to For Iraq: Community Based Security

At some point, people need to realize that journalists are in a business themselves.

How much time can you spend doing research when you have other stories to cover? How long can you afford to delay the story while you do research? What kinds of articles will draw readers' attentions?

And really, all those conspiracy theories are getting old. I really doubt that the MSM is conspiring against the left OR the right, much less both at the same time.

Posted at June 7, 2007 9:59 AM in response to Dems Emulate GOP Style: Any And All Attacks on Democrats are "Media Bias"

Actually, Obama's article goes to show that when it comes to dealing with Israel, US presidential candidates are fearful of stirring up controversy.

Posted at June 6, 2007 4:20 PM in response to Barack Obama on the Middle East

So anyone who creates a tabletop war game involving potentially real scenarios of country X invading country Y is a war criminal? Give me a break.

Senator Obama doesn't have the authority to declare war, and the language used by the Nuremberg Charter are imprecise enough that it'd be a stretch to convict Bush of war crimes, much less someone who has no authority over such matters.

There's no strict definition of "war of aggression" defined. Was invading Afghanistan a war of aggression? What about Bosnia? What if Turkey made intrusions into Northern Iraq to fight the PKK? Would invading Iran because they refuse to allow nuclear inspections as demanded by the UN be a war of aggression, even if done unilaterally?

Nor is there a threshold set for what is considered "planning". Is saying that, "Attacking Iran is an option" considered planning? It's a little hard to argue that, though it is possible. But the quote from Obama doesn't even mention "war" or "attacking". All it says is, "All options are on the table." Which invites the reader/listener to form their own interpretation of what "all [the] options" are. Bombarding Iran with nukes certainly qualifies as an "option", but I somehow doubt that's something Obama was including in his "all options" umbrella.

Posted at June 6, 2007 4:19 PM in response to Barack Obama on the Middle East

i tend to infer unequal opportunities from the fact of unequal outcomes.

Which is, of course, inferring unequal outcomes from unequal opportunities. I'm a logical kind of person, so it helps me to phrase this in more mathematical notation:

"If A and B have unequal opportunities, then A and B will have unequal outcomes" is a more truthful statement than "If A and B had unequal outcomes, then A and B had unequal opportunities".

And the statement that matters is the former, not the latter.

Posted at June 1, 2007 4:57 PM in response to Fisking George F. Will's "Case for Conservatism"

I think I forgot to conclude my own point, which is that they don't provide any sort of supporting evidence for their conclusion. It just appears out of thin air at the end of their article.

Posted at May 29, 2007 11:37 AM in response to A Truly Bizarre Argument in the Making

They argue that to make the tax system more progressive—e.g., to let the high-end Bush cuts expire on schedule—would be advocating “a tax on going to college and a subsidy for dropping out of high school.”

Posted at May 29, 2007 9:59 AM in response to A Truly Bizarre Argument in the Making

Quoted from Joe Klein over at Swampland:

You might say, this was a symbolic vote. It wasn't. It was a political vote. Yesterday I spoke with Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-Ca.) just back from Iraq, who voted for the bill--as did a majority of Democrats who are not running for President. "Look, I would love to have cast a vote against Bush on this. We need a new strategy and I hope we can force one in September," she told me. "But I flew into Baghdad on a troop transport with 150 kids, heading into the field. To vote against this bill was to vote against giving them the equipment, the armor they need. I couldn't do that."

Posted at May 25, 2007 10:16 AM in response to Hillary and Obama Say No