"Did Use of Free Trade Cause Neanderthal Extinction?"

University of Wyoming economist Jason Shogren and his colleagues Richard Horan of Michigan State University and Erwin Bulte from Tilburg University in the Netherlands believe that Free Trade Caused Neanderthal Extinction?. It truly is a poorly written headline, as (at least to me) it seems to be saying that because Neanderthal's used Free Trade they became extinct. In fact, probably a more correct headline would have been to replace "Did the Use of..." with "Did a lack of..." Anyway, enough quibbling with the headline. My real problem is that it seems that what is being implied by the headline doesn't actually reflect the success story within the, er, story. In short, it was because of Free Trade that homo sapiens thrived while Neanderthal died.

...they argue early modern humans were first to exploit the competitive edge gained from specialization and free trade. With more reliance on free trade, humans increased their activities in culture and technology, while simultaneously out-competing Neanderthals on their joint hunting grounds, the economists say.

Archaeological evidence exists to suggest traveling bands of early humans interacted with each other and that inter-group trading emerged, says Shogren. Early humans, the Aurignations and the Gravettians, imported many raw materials over long ranges and their innovations were widely dispersed. Such exchanges of goods and ideas helped early humans to develop “supergroup social mechanisms.” The long-range interchange among different groups kept both cultures going and generated new cultural explosions, Shogren says.

Anthropologists have noted how judicious redistribution of excess resources provides a distinct advantage to “efficient hunters” as measured by factors such as increased survivorship, social prestige, or reproductive opportunities, the researchers say...

He says the evidence does not support the concept of division of labor and trade among Neanderthals. While Neanderthals probably cooperated with one another to some extent, the evidence does not support the view that specialization arose from any formal division of labor or that inter- or intra-group trade existed, he says. These practices seem to require all the things that Neanderthals lacked: a more complicated social organization, a degree of innovative behavior, forward planning and the exchange of information, ideas and raw materials.

“Basic economic forces of scarcity and relative costs and benefits have played integral roles in shaping societies throughout recorded human history,” Shogren says. “No reason exists today to discount either the presence or potential impact of economics in the pre-historic dawning of humanity.”

I wonder if many Aurignations complained about the outsourcing of spearheads to the Gravettians?

Viewing Terri Schiavo as a Disabled

Harriet McBryde Johnson offers some interesting points if one starts seeing Terri Schiavo as a disabled person and thus one who should be protected by the American With Disablities Act. She makes ten (10) points, which are worth reading.

Conservative "Crackup" or Not?

Glenn Reynolds wonders if the Conservative movement is going to "crack up" over the Schiavo debate. (He opines at both Instapundit and GlennReynolds.com). Jonah Goldberg says, nope, we've heard this all before:

This is an old and rich topic, but I think one part of the problem with "conservatism's over" school is that people confuse intellectual conservatism for popular conservatism generally. They are overlapping and mutually dependent movements, to be sure, but less so than most of the disgruntled intellectual types think. If the popular political movement does something at odds with the intellectual precepts of the eggheads, someone invariably yells "aha! the movement cannot sustain such internal contradictions!"

The problem is that all serious and large political and ideological movements contain internal contradictions. Internal contradictions come with growth. Perfect internal consistency comes with contraction and insularity. Small cults are internally consistent on every point. Large movements must deal with coalitions of competing interests.

This doesn't mean such contradictions don't create problems and challenges, but if you're looking for a major coalition to fall apart, you should look less for intellectual contradictions and more for conflicts of interests between major segments of the coalition. The intellectual conflicts are interesting to intellectuals -- that's why we call them "intellectuals" -- but they don't always reflect concrete antagonisms within the movement. Frank Meyer's fusionism -- the marriage between traditional or social conservatism and anti-state or libertarian conservatism -- never really worked on paper very well. But despite this internal contradiction -- capitalism versus stability -- the conservative movement prospered because it believed such a marriage would be useful ideal even if it couldn't be attained in practice.

Those who want to find in the Schiavo case proof of a movement-splitting schism need to demonstrate that a major constituent of the conservative movement -- free marketers, for example -- can no longer abide by fighting side-by-side with pro-lifers or social-conservatives.

By the way, my pals Andrew and Justin are tossing this around over at Anchor Rising, too. (Andrew, Justin, Andrew 2)

Schiavo

Fred Barnes has boiled the Schiavo debate down to three points, but the aspect that has me in "deep thought" mode is this:

True, there is an arguable federalism issue: whether taking the issue out of a state's jurisdiction is constitutional. But it pales in comparison with the moral issue.

It is on that specific point that I am debating. On the one hand, it seems distasteful on the face of it to weigh cold "federalist principles" against the emotion-packed desire to see life preserved. On the other, is there a place in government, true conservative government, for emotionalism? I'm just thinking out loud. It's a difficult thing. The problem is, despite all of Michael Schiavo's apparent "problems," how do we know he isn't telling the truth? Believe me, I'm sympathetic to the "err on the side of life" argument too. No matter how this situation is resolved, the debate will go on, and the repercussions will be felt for years.

Where I am

I continue to gradually improve, however any of the small amount of computer time that I am currently alloting myself is being mostly devoted to school work. This is my last "hurrah" for all intents and purposes, so I have to papers with accompanying presentations and a revision or two to go on my MA thesis. If I haven't dropped of anyone's blogging radar completely, I thank you. I expect that as spring comes into bloom, blogging will proceed on a more regular, and frequent, pace.

Yes, I'm Back

Slowly but surely, I'm getting back into the groove after neck surgery. Still a little soft mentally and a little achy, but the surgery went well. Unfortunately, computer time is and will be the main casualty of recovering from the procedure, so blogging and typing will still be light for a few weeks until I get the O.K. to resume normal activity. I'm on the road to recovery, though, and things will be showing up here, at Anchor Rising and at Spinning Clio every now and then. Thanks for the patience.

The Jones Act and Coastal Trade

In espousing a water-highway for more effective and efficient commerce, the ProJo editorial board touched on the 1920 Jones Act, which mandated that all coastal trade be conducted by ships built in the U.S. and registered, or "flagged," there, too. They rightly point out that most commercial ship-building left our country a long time ago, but fail to mention that there are still several shipyards that build navy ships or subs, such as in Groton or Bath, Maine. Nonetheless, there simply aren't enough qualified ships to engage in coastwise trips, so we are left to rely on the tug/barge method. As a former mariner, I am quite familiar with the debate. Usually what then happens is that it is proposed that the Jones Act be repealed to allow foreign ships into the waters. The regulatory gap between the U.S. and countries who offer "flags of convenience" such as Liberia or Panama is often used as the hammer to squelch such a proposal, usually with environmental concerns in the vanguard of opposition.

The fact of the matter is that it doesn't take the repeal of the Jones Act to increase this trade as I believe that increased barge traffic would be sufficient. The problem would be the hysterical reaction that environmental groups would undoubtedly have. Witness the cries of "too much Bay traffic" with the proposal for an LNG terminal in Providence. No, the problem isn't the Jones Act, its the inevitable NIMB's (Not In My Bay) who surface whenever any mention is made of using Narragansett Bay commercially. Thus, Rhode Island is prevented from fully capitalizing on the asset from which it derives its nickname of the Ocean State.

Victor Hanson : Turning Points

Victor Davis Hanson takes a look at turning points since 9/11. Pretty much all you need to know, in short, a good example of contemporary history writing, if you will.

Things are going to be quiet around here

I will be off line for a while as I have some personal matters that will preclude me from regular posting. I hope to be back in a week or two. Please come back then!

The Secrets of Rennes-le-Chateau

Massimo Polidoro delves into the "history" behind Dan Browne's Da Vinci Code and (surprise!) finds a scam.

Barnett on Barnett (No relation)

Dean Barnett reminds that much of President Bush's foreign policy seems similar to that proposed by Thomas P.M. Barnett in his book The Pentagon's New Map. I'd recommend the book, having read it myself. On the particular point of restructuring the military, Thomas Barnett believes that we should have a sort of "fighting" force (he terms this the Leviathan) and an occupation force (he terms this System Administration). Thomas Barnett also believes that Defense Secretary Rumsfeld is the right man to effect these changes.

Rumsfeld is moving the pile: he wants Special Ops Command to focus on killing terrorists (and he wants them to have their own dedicated intell units); he wants Civil Affairs out of SOCOM and back in the Army, which should focus a whole lot more on post-conflict stabilization and reconstruction (something it is loathe to do); he wants the Army and Marines to do more mil-mil training, again freeing up SOCOM's trigger-pullers to focus on killing terrorists; and he want a general shift away from planning for conventional wars to a more balanced approach that highlights the need to be able to handle post-war foes like insurgencies.

This is why Rumsfeld needs to stay. He basically "gets" the challenge and the need for change, and he'll push the uniformed services to get it done.

Kyoto is Falling Before is Gets Up

Hans H.J. Labohm writes that the Kyoto protocol's "walls are crumbling down." Britain's Tony Blair is doing all he can to prevent this. Labohm tells us why

Tony Blair is tough on security and the economy. His stance on Iraq and the recently announced measures to reform the British disability pension scheme are cases in point. With the latter he tries to impose a sound dose of additional work ethic on his flock. On the other hand he has to preserve his leftish credentials in order to please the left wing of his Party. Kyoto, the darling of the Left, offers him a golden opportunity to do so. So he has to posture as a fierce defender of this messianic project. When it fails, he can clearly show that he has done his utmost to succeed, but he had to yield to strong opposing forces, on which he can put the blame. Of course, Europe's favourite candidates for this role include the Americans and/or President Bush. Subsequently, Blair may leave the battle unscathed and have his way.

But of course, it is preposterous, yes even malicious to speculate that this kind of premeditation is part of Blair's calculations. Therefore, the reader should erase it immediately from his memory.

OK, zzzzzziiiiiiiippppppp. Erased. ;)

Of God and the Constitution

In a February 3, 2005 column entitled "Our Godless Constitution" posted on The Nation's web site, Brooke Allen puts forth the case (which has been done often enough) of how the most of the Founders were not religious and that they intentionally left out references to God in the official documents that they wrote. As I said, this is well-covered ground and is not the focus of what follows. Instead, my antenna went up when, as part of her argument, Allen made much of a single treaty of the many that the United States signed with the Barbary powers.

In 1797 our government concluded a "Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, or Barbary," now known simply as the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 of the treaty contains these words:

"As the Government of the United States...is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity of Musselmen--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." [ed. I'm not sure why Allen put in the elipses as this appears to be the original text according to the link provided]

This document was endorsed by Secretary of State Timothy Pickering and President John Adams. It was then sent to the Senate for ratification; the vote was unanimous. It is worth pointing out that although this was the 339th time a recorded vote had been required by the Senate, it was only the third unanimous vote in the Senate's history. There is no record of debate or dissent. The text of the treaty was printed in full in the Philadelphia Gazette and in two New York papers, but there were no screams of outrage, as one might expect today.

While it seems Allen got her facts straight, she ignored the historical context in which the treaty ratification occurred. It is entirely plausible that the disassociation from the Christian religion was made to assuage the "Musselmen" who definitely held the power in the negotiation and didn't themselves refrain from alluding to God in this instance or others.

They U.S. had no Navy to speak of to protect their merchant ships in either the Atlantic or the Mediterranean and relied on the Navies of other nations --Britain, France, Portugal-- (though some of these paid regular tribute) to keep the pirates in check. Additionally, the Barbary Pirates didn't agree to peace out of some high-minded idealism. Instead, by taking hostages and attacking U.S. merchant ships, they brought the U.S. to the bargaining table and extracted more material concessions:

twelve thousand Spanish dollars
five hawsers-8 Inch
three cables-10 Inch
twenty five barrels tar
twenty five d° pitch
ten d° rosin
five hundred pine boards
five hundred oak d°
ten masts (without any measure mentioned, suppose for vessels from 2 to 300 ton)
twelve yards
fifty bolts canvas
four anchors

Thus, the exclusion of a claim that Christianity was a founding principle of the U.S. in the text of the treaty can equally be viewed as a diplomatic maneuver and not necessarily as proof that the U.S. believed itself to be irreligious. Similarly, no mention was made of God in the 1789 Treaty with the Six Nations, the Chickasaw Treaty of 1805, or the Treaty with the Potawatami of 1828 (this last occurring during the Second Great Awakening), just to offer a few examples. Couldn't this be because one of the parties, the Native American tribes, didn't believe in a Christian God?

Another example can be offered with the opening of The Paris Peace Treaty of September 3, 1783

In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.

It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the grace of God, king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, arch-treasurer and prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc., and of the United States of America, to forget all past misunderstandings and differences that have unhappily interrupted the good correspondence and friendship which they mutually wish to restore, and to establish such a beneficial and satisfactory intercourse , between the two countries upon the ground of reciprocal advantages and mutual convenience as may promote and secure to both perpetual peace and harmony. . .

Does this prove that Americans in 1783 viewed themselves as religious people, even Catholic(!!!???) because of the reference to the "Trinity"? Or does it prove that Americans agreed to a Treaty that opened with references to God and the Holy Trinity because France (a Catholic Nation, after all) was involved in the peace negotiations and probably drew up the document?

Ms. Allen is not conspicuous in her attempt to support her rhetoric with "historical proof." I've done it too. However, one of the standards to which we historians should aspire is to provide context --when we can and in whatever forum-- so that a more complete picture --a painting on a wider canvas, if you will-- can be revealed behind the rhetorical snapshot.

ADDENDUM: I happen to be doing research in the historical era of the Wars against the Barbary Pirates and stumbled upon this essay (originally published on 11 April 1997; updated 26 December 2004) in which much is made of the Treaty with Tripoli. Accorcding to the author, Jim Walker, Article 11 of the treaty also "proved" to him that the U.S. Government, as evidenced on an official document, proclaimed it was not a Christian nation. Walker does provide some additional detail concerning the American Agent, Joel Barlow, who drew up the treaty:

The preliminary treaty began with a signing on 4 November, 1796 (the end of George Washington's last term as president). Joel Barlow, the American diplomat served as counsel to Algiers and held responsibility for the treaty negotiations. Barlow had once served under Washington as a chaplain in the revolutionary army. He became good friends with Paine, Jefferson, and read Enlightenment literature. Later he abandoned Christian orthodoxy for rationalism and became an advocate of secular government. Joel Barlow wrote the original English version of the treaty, including Amendment 11. Barlow forwarded the treaty to U.S. legislators for approval in 1797. Timothy Pickering, the secretary of state, endorsed it and John Adams concurred (now during his presidency), sending the document on to the Senate. The Senate approved the treaty on June 7, 1797, and officially ratified by the Senate with John Adams signature on 10 June, 1797. All during this multi-review process, the wording of Article 11 never raised the slightest concern. The treaty even became public through its publication in The Philadelphia Gazette on 17 June 1797.

Two points: First, the site from which this essay was linked is called NoBeliefs.com. It claims to be a site for "Freethinkers" but really appears to be anti-religious (if articles titled "The Dark Bible" and "Hitler's Christianity" are any indication). Thus, I believe we have the original source for Ms. Allen's information, or at the very least we have another outlet that just happens to have alluded to the same relatively obscure treaty to make an, um, talking point.

The second point is that, even if Walker has his facts right (I don't have the time to dig deeper myself), and even if Barlow was an atheist and he was being an "atheistic activist" in drawing up the treaty (to which I would agree, assuming Walker's facts concerning Barlow's atheism are correct), Walker doesn't seem to take into account the diplomatic circumstances surrounding the Treaty signing as I've already mentioned. He also fails to consider the logistics of treaty making in the late 18th Century. If the Congress disliked the wording of the 11th clause, and they decided to strike it, the Treaty would have to be returned for reconsideration to Tripoli. Meanwhile, more U.S. ships, such as those owned by prolific and important Massuchusetts merchants for whom John Adams ostensibly served, would have continued to be vulnerable to raids. In other words, I would venture that there was a degree of expediency surrounding the signing and that a feeling of "Let's get the damn thing signed" permeated Congress. As for the point regarding it being published in the papers with nary a protest, well, when was the last time you read the entire text of a treaty? I'd bet the average Philadelphian saw the headline, said "good, it's about time" and read on. (I also believe that there was an epidemic of Yellow Fever raging in Philadelphia, and possibly New York, at that time). This selective use of History is improper. I'm glad I caught it.

A Worthy Battlestar

Ken Silber offers a good review of SciFi's Battlestar Galactica series. As a kid I loved the original, hokey 1970's version. As an adult, I like the updated version. Besides, what else is there to do on a Friday at 10 pm? (At least for a mid-30's married w/children guy like me?)

Fashionable anti-Americanism

Dominic Hilton writes that anti-Americanism isn't as bad as we think. Rather, it's more of an "industry" driven "fashion statement."

The industry of anti-American sentiment is just that – an industry. It should not be mistaken for legitimate and considered concern. “I hate America” is the world’s default position. Knocking America is a form of displacement. It helps non-Americans avoid focusing on their own big problems. In fact, strip it of its lacy hosiery and the world’s relationship with America is disgustingly Freudian.

Further along, he cites Jean Francois Revel and others

“The illogicality at base consists in reproaching the United States for some shortcoming, and then for its opposite,” writes Jean-Francois Revel in his aptly-titled Anti-Americanism. “Here is a convincing sign that we are in the presence, not of rational analysis, but of obsession.”

. . . Anti-Americanism, when not perpetrated by true haters, is often a stale mockery of America, born of our own fascination. This is our (the world’s) problem, not America’s. Jean-Francois Revel suggests that we “project our faults onto America so as to absolve ourselves”. As he says of his native France, and Barry Rubin and Judith Colp Rubin say of the last four hundred years, some of this “Hating America” is born of fear, some of plain old weakness, some of outright jealousy. The left, in particular, is green with envy. 20th-century Communism only served to augment belief in the American Dream. “The success of America was thus a devastating blow to the Left,” writes Michael Ledeen. “It wasn’t supposed to happen. And American success was particularly galling because it came at the expense of Europe itself, and of the embodiment of the Left’s most utopian dream: the Soviet Union.”

But some leftists are getting tired of it. The narrative of left-wing anti-Americanism “has ceased to be critical, but become predestinarian,” says John Lloyd. Such stasis serves nobody except the tyrants, the terrorists, and the unoriginal, knee-jerk loudmouths who cash in on the fashionability of the flaming Spangled Banner (categorised by Barry Rubin as “self-interest”).

To me, Hilton provides the best insight when talking of America's ideals as opposed to its "materialism" (or actions)

America is going to say and think big things about itself. Look at its history, and then understand that the United States is a nation, and acts as such – in its own interests and with a powerful identity. In his response to Bush’s second inaugural, the American commentator David Brooks identified “this weird intermingling of high ideals with gross materialism” which so defines his country. In the spirit of Washington and Kennedy, the president waxed lyrical on mankind’s highest ideals. Later that evening, “drunken, loud and privileged twentysomethings” carried each other piggyback down K Street.

“The people who detest America take a look at this odd conjunction and assume the materialistic America is the real America; the ideals are a sham,” Brooks wrote. “The real America, they insist, is the money-grubbing, resource-wasting, TV-drenched, unreflective bimbo of the earth. The high-toned language, the anti-Americans say, is just a cover for the quest for oil, or the desire for riches, dominion and war. But of course they’ve got it exactly backward. It’s the ideals that are real.”

The ideals are real. Not because they are America’s, but because they are ideals and they are the right ideals. Those who don’t revel in extremism, dictatorship and political stagnation have to decide whose camp they want to be in. Does Europe really feel more allied to communist China than conservative America? The European Union and China share “a convergence of views about the United States, its foreign policy and its global behaviour,” says David Shambaugh of George Washington University. This should send a shudder down the spine of democrats. Who truly wants to believe the late Susan Sontag and her assertion that America is “a doomed country … founded on a genocide”? Get over yourself. I’m sticking with my stateside compadre John Hulsman, who believes

“there is little doubt we have all benefited from the ‘naïve’ optimism that has enabled America to do amazing things not just for itself, but also for all mankind.”

Hilton's conclusion draws on John F. Kennedy

America is not the panacea, nor is it the devil. Our problems are generally our problems. The world would do well to be a little more like America, a tad more insular, self-involved.

Non-Americans love to quote John Kennedy’s famous call, “And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.” Why? It is the second part of Kennedy’s couplet we should heed and let roll off our tongues: “My fellow citizens of the world, ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.” This still stands. And freedom, like charity, discipline and intelligence, begins at home.

Howard Dean: DNC Chair

In an opinion piece regarding the selection of Howard Dean as Democrat National Committee Chair (published in today's ProJo), Jonathan Chait, editor at The New Republic, offers this pithy statement: "As the last election showed, the core constituencies are plenty well fed. There just aren't enough of them to win the White House." As such, Chait believes Dean will appeal to the liberal base but will be unable to broaden the base of the party. James Pinkerton isn't so sure.

US and Europe, Closer Together

James K. Glassman disputes the assertion recently made by NY Times columnist Thomas Friedman that the U.S. and Europe are as far apart as ever. Rather, Glassman believes we are coming closer together, but not because of any change in U.S. policy. Here are five of his reasons:

First, Europeans are realists. They have finally come to understand that, with his re-election, Bush is here to stay. He's not changing his mind about the Kyoto Protocol or the International Criminal Court. John Kerry won't ride to the rescue.

Second, the elections in Iraq have had a profound effect. Le Monde, the left-leaning newspaper of France's intelligentsia, headlined Tuesday: 'Franco-American Rapprochement After Iraq Elections.' My dictionary says a rapprochement is 'an agreement between two opposing groups.'

Friedman wrote his piece on Jan. 27, before the vote, but it's a different Europe today. No, the French and Germans aren't sending troops to Iraq just now, but they are getting actively involved in security and reconstruction. The election gives them a rationale: It's the Iraqis who seek their assistance, not the Americans. Of course, the effect is the same. Europe now sees the same path to success in Iraq as we do.

Third, the president has formulated his foreign policy with more clarity, especially in his inaugural speech. It's a combination of principle and prudence, which, rather than being a destabilizing break with the past, is actually a continuation of American tradition.

Woodrow Wilson wanted to make the world safe for democracy. Bush wants democracy to make the world safe.

This clearer, more powerful formulation of policy would have been welcome before the Iraq war (instead, the United States emphasized legalisms in an effort to get U.N. approval), but it's better late than never, and it is being treated with respect among Europeans who previously saw U.S. policy as simply naive and cynical.

Fourth, the new secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, is seen, unlike her predecessor, as speaking for the president. While the message she's bringing Europe in her visit this week is a continuation of policy she helped set in the first term, her tone is friendly. The very fact that she and the president are focusing so much attention on Europe in the first few weeks of the new term (in the first term it was Mexico) is viewed as a significant change.

Fifth, the European Union itself is different, with the accession last year of 10 new countries, mainly from Eastern Europe. Members of the European parliament from such countries recognize the role the United States played in freeing them from Soviet domination. Ronald Reagan is their hero.

Harris Urges U.S. to Keep Allawi at the Helm

Lee Harris offers this sobering assessment of the election results in Iraq:

The ultimate tragedy in Iraq may well be that the nation actually had a chance for a decent future -- a chance that the Bush administration had given the Iraqi people through its deft backing of a truly national leader like Allawi, yet a chance which the same administration may well have fecklessly thrown away through its ideological fixation on formal democracy as a panacea for all that ails the Middle East. In the past, democracies have not only voted good men out of office, in order to put terrible men into their place, but democracies have, at times, even voted themselves out of existence. The French did this when they elected Louis Napoleon emperor, the Italians did this when they made Mussolini the Duce, the Germans did it when they made Hitler the F?hrer. The once supposedly democratic revolution in Iran ended in a Shi'ite theocracy; and it could happen once again in Iraq.

The Austrian philosopher, Karl Popper, the champion of the open society, warned of what he called the paradox of democracy. If the people wish to vote themselves out of power, what is to stop them -- except a minority determined to protect the rights of a majority who is no longer interested in defending such rights themselves?

By this paradox, it may well have been that the best policy to pursue in Iraq would have been to back Allawi to the hilt, come hell and high water. True, those who hate us would have called us imperialists; but they us call that anyway, even after the elections that we held in order to prove that we are not. The Bush administration, by hoping to appear admirable in the eyes of its enemies, may well have ended by betraying its best friends -- Allawi and those who shared his views of Iraq as an open and liberal society.

Economics in Six Minutes

If your are one of the "Economic Unwashed", Fred E. Foldvary offers a lesson in Economics in Six Minutes. It's well worth the read because it introduces (or reintroduces) many economic terms and principles. Don't swallow it whole, however: just use it as a jumping off point. (via Political Theory Daily Review)

FDR Believed in Social Security Privatization

Duane D. Freese uncovered an interesting quote from Franklin Roosevelt concerning his vision of Social Security.

In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, noncontributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps 30 years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities that in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans. [Franklin Roosevelt, Message to Congress on Social Security on Jan. 17, 1935]

In short, FDR believed privatization of a portion of Social Security was the proper course to follow.