Category Archives: Politics

Send your Gluteal Scan to the FBI

Leave a reply

It is hard to believe with all of the “good” news lately that the US gvernment is on our side. The Bush II Y2009 budget proposal comes in at a stunning $3.1 Trillion against an estimated $2.5 Trillion in receipts.

The FBI wants to collect biometric data on US citizens. It wasn’t clear to me as to whether they want to collect this data as law abiding citizens go about their business at airports with iris scans and electronic fingerprints, or if they will limit the effort to people taken into custody.  In any case, the notion of our government collecting ever more data on its citizens should bring chills to everyone.  It is all about control. Once taken, never returned.

I, for one, would be only too happy to fax a photocopy of my biometric gluteal cleft to the FBI to post wherever it suits them. It shines like a mackerel in the moonlight. In fact, there is a protest movement I could get on board with- The Million Man Moon on Washington.

The Customs and Border Patrol agency has proposed the new “10 + 2” rule which should be a real delite to deal with. We’re already scrambling to figure out what the hell this means for the purchasing people.  Lots of detailed info will have to be timed properly to keep things moving through customs.  It’s going to be a big mess and the only benefit will be that the government will collect more duties.

Chinese Cyberwar and US Interests

6 Replies

An intelligence report posted by International Relations and Security Network (ISN) at the Center for Security Studies at ETH in Zurich reveals what appears to be a widening and systematic program of cyber attacks on US government data infrastructure by elements within the military organ of China.

Rachel Kesselman at ISN Security Watch writes-

According to a 2006 US Defense Department report, the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) began developing information warfare reserves and militia units in 2005, often incorporating them into broader exercises and training. The establishment of this elite Chinese unit is evident by a likely increase in sophisticated attacks on high-risk targets.

Reports in Chinese newspapers also suggest that the Chinese are actively attempting to establish a cybermilitia. A Time Magazine article entitled “Enemies at The Firewall” purports that the military has put forth a concerted effort to carry out nationwide recruiting campaigns in hopes of discovering the country’s most brilliant hackers. 

Like so many Americans, I live in a bubble. The extent and brazenness of the activity reported by ISN and other sources only serves to stimulate the paranoid cortex of my brain.

What seems likely is that most nations are engaged in systematic probing of the data resources of the upper tier states. Chinese enthusiasm for this activity may or may not be exceptional among the nuclear states. Certainly, computer spycraft is nothing new and that China practices it shouldn’t be a surprise.

Henry Kissinger once remarked that nation states do not have friends. They only act in parallel with states having similar interests. In this vein, we should not be lulled into thinking that China, or any other state for that matter, is our friend. China is certainly not our friend. The US is a fountain of wealth that they aim to tap through government backed market activity.

Economic idealogues in the US prattle on tirelessly about the virtues of the free market and the merits of regulatory deconstruction. But on the global scale, markets are unavoidably tied to regulatory constructs as a result of notions about security and dominance.

Just try to get a shipment of anything to China or to South Africa or into the USA. There is no free market. Every single aspect of a transaction is highly regulated or controlled by some apparatus that is highly controlled. Tariff codes, tariffs, shipping reglations, wire transfers, and customs clearance- the reality of a free market barely extends past the canopy of a fruitstand in a farmers market.

I believe that the US should cast off this free market puritanism and act in a manner so as to protect its economic interests. Yes, we’d like to keep as free a market as possible. But American culture, not government, has to be the locus of change. American culture should de-emphasize its fascination with pure wealth and look askance at the sterile detachment many influential businessmen have with regard to their profit motive. We want to be profitable. But we do not want to hand over the keys to our technological toolshed for a quick buck. If we cannot afford to manufacture here, there should be an expectation that we try to innovate around the economic barriers rather than just resort to abandonment.

We should be wary about using the language of friendship with China. This nation has its own sense of where it is headed and has become quite refractory to admonitions and paternalistic brow beatings by the US and others.  It has its own momentum and will do what is in its best interest. Americans should do what is in their best interest as well. That is, avoid trading the farm to foreign interests who have much more discipline with their attention span. 

America’s Achilles heel seems to be the inability to be patient and plan for results over the long term. We live in a NOW culture. Advances in computer technology has only engorged our expectation that we can and should have everything now. The mortgage and credit crises are only the latest examples of this.

American culture has gotten fat and lazy. Our rotund wastelines are only the exterior. Within our culture is a kind of bacchanalian sloth that has drifted like a fog into our collective yard party. Everyone is too busy eating and drinking to notice that the greed-heads have set the house on fire.

GOP Economics- Cash for Election Year!!

1 Reply

It was just announced that Congress and the Whitehouse have reached an agreement that will flood 117 million households (or families) with $600 to $1200 in mad money tax rebates. It supposedly amounts to 150 gigabucks.

Time to invest in Apple and Disney Resorts, because a lot of new iPods are going to be worn on trips to Disney theme parks. Same idea with flat screen TV’s.

Gold sounds like a good choice on which to spend the money.

Warren Buffett and Jim “Mad Money” Cramer see this latest Wall Street fiasco as a rat that will eventually pass through the python. 

While Wall Street sorts itself out, the rest of us need to understand what the Finance MBA’s are learning in B-School. The finance geniuses wizards seem to have an endless supply of schemes for brittle financial instruments. Yet another house of cards has collapsed. 

Deficit spending and the low value of US currency are huge problems that the GOP should be held accountable for before Bush the Lesser slinks out of DC. Where does Bush think the money will come from with his rebate? Obviously, it’s from the presses at the treasury or debt in the form of T-Bills.

Question of the day: What value does a country that is busy exporting its industry derive from a devalued currency? 

My Dear Libertarian Friends

6 Replies

Something I have learned while working alongside fundamentalist libertarians is this: Libertarianism is a political philosophy that seems to provide a framework for the justification of isolationism and selfishness. It is an economic theory that conveniently validates the inherent stinginess of its adherents. It has an appealing and complex theoretical basis. But like all economic theories, is idealistic and requires universal alignment by the population.

That being said, I agree that the US could use a healthy dose of libertarian pragmatism these days. Government is  far too big and too many resources are being channeled into foreign adventures while the national debt accrues.  Our elected leaders resemble an angry mob with a credit card throwing debt bombs.

But when I hear libertarians talk about their resentment at sharing resources in the form of taxation (or, being forced to share their resources), I can’t help but wonder what is really behind this restrained anger.  All of my libertarian friends have benefited enormously from the infrastructure provided by the pooling of resources. They drive to work on the interstate highways, fly safely in controlled airspace, benefit from the safety provided by the military, learned to read from public school teachers, use the system of currency for their wellbeing, flush their toilets thanks to public sanitary systems, eat safely thanks to the local health department (food safety is a big one), have drugs to treat their illnesses with the help of NIH, and on and on.

Of course there are problems with all of our public institutions, some of them quite serious. But the marketplace is just as prone to corruption as the government. I think that libertarians want to get off the merry-go-round and disconnect from the manditory and expensive socialization that keeps creeping into our lives. I do too sometimes. But it seems painfully obvious that our path to this point has not been all bad and our public institutions have contributed to our stability and well being.

All organizations work better under structural tension- the balance of forces. Libertarianism is a useful counterpoint to liberal socialization and conservative militarism. Like the three legs of a stool, these competing political influences can serve the betterment of our society and keep each other in check.

Precautionary Principle or Precautionary Anxiety

2 Replies

Our technological culture is slipping into a kind of Nanny State where risk aversion has become institutionalized at all levels.  Much of this trend has to do with the Precautionary Principle. I won’t elaborate on it because it well presented elsewhere. 

My concern with the Precautionary Principle is not because I have dismissed the threats of deforestation or extinction or global warming. My concern is not because I believe we should freely and wantonly expose people to chemcials substances.  I am concerned about the effect of this principle on innovation.  I believe it is possible and necessary to maintain our technological advance while minimizing the total environmental insult.

In regard to chemistry, innovation is being made far more difficult because of precautionary anxiety.  Part of the issue is fear of chemicals, or what some have called Chemophobia. Chemophobes know in their heart that “chemicals” are bad. 

Chemophobia is real.  Chemophobia derives from a lack of understanding of the chemical sciences and the meaning of risk.  To the chemophobe, any “chemical” odor is a prelude to cancer or other illness.  Bad smell equals toxic.  Good smell equals safe. However, such conclusions are easily toppled when you consider manure and phosgene. Manure is foul smelling, but not especially toxic. Phosgene is fragrant but highly toxic. Stink and toxicity correlate poorly and are a weak basis to judge safety.

We need to keep safety in a proper perspective. We need to have places where we can handle hazardous chemicals for research and manufacturing. The process of education will filter out those who are uncomfortable with the risks and produce those who are willing to work in such places in order to advance science. Students who have an interest in chemical sciences need to have the chance to work with reactive chemicals without undue constraint. Yes, they need to be in a lab and under the supervision of a trained mentor.  But students need to get experience working with reactive materials in order to develop judgement.

Humble Pie for Chavez, Victory for Czar Putin

1 Reply

There was an outbreak of sensibility in Venezuela this weekend as that swaggering gasbag, Hugo Chavez, was set back in his bid to rewrite the constitution.  Chavez, who was recently and openly told to “shut up” by King Juan Carlos of Spain, has been on a nationalization binge in the last few years. To validate his further consolidation of power, his party attempted to alter the constitution to favor his continued tenure and further his grasp on the resources of the state.  The people of Venezuela told him to go powder his nose.

Things weren’t so democratic in Russia last weekend as a highly managed political campaign delivered the goods. That is, victory for the Party of Vlad Putin, the new Czar of Russia. With key opposition leaders temporarily in jail (Kasparov), and a state controlled media, a comfortable margin of victory was delivered as expected to Putin by his aparachiki. 

Russia’s long, sad history of Big Boss rule continues.

News Poisoning- Hystrionicatoxin

5 Replies

I have noticed that my general level of anxiety seems to follow the extent to which I am tuned into the news. The more news I listen to, the greater the stress. Even my beloved NPR is showing chronic toxic effects.

The pace and magnitude of the news cycle seems to be tied to the level of outrageous events.  All of the detail and repetition add up to a heightened angst that eventually wears one down.

Someone once defined news as “semi-analytical show business”.  It’s a 24/7 circus in High Definition.  The whole political system has redesigned itself to synchronize its actions to interfere constructively or destructively (whichever confers benefit) with the news cycle.

I need to get off this merry-go-round.

Carbonylated Surf and Turf

4 Replies

As a desperate strategy to fight insomnia, Th’ Gaussling often finds himself watching C-Span at 1 AM.  Congressional testimony or a televised speech at the International Museum Docent Convention by the Acting Assistant Deputy Undersecretary of the Stratosphere is often enough to initiate somnolence.

But early this morning was different. A panel of FDA administrators were before a House Committee on Commerce Chaired by Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Michigan. At issue was H.R. 4167, the National Uniformity for Food Act. Apparently, the proposed law will remove requirements for certain kinds of food labeling, in particular the presence of certain additives may not be part of manditory labeling.

What has come to light is the industrial practice of exposing meats and fish to an atmosphere of dilute carbon monoxide (CO, ca 0.4 %) in order to maintain a red color in the flesh.  Meat naturally turns brown on exposure to air over a short period. Industry has been wrestling with this for a long time, adopting and subsequently abandoning various schemes for maintaining the reassuring red color of meats and certain fish. Carbon monoxide coordinates with iron in haemoglobin to afford a complex that renders the tissues red in color. The FDA defines CO as a fixative in this application, rather than a preservative.

As a result of the use of this scheme, it is possible to keep meats and fish with a saleable red appearance for much longer. This reduces store losses due to the non-marketability of brown meat.

The House Commerce Committee was split down the isle in terms of its concern for this matter. Democratic committee members voiced considerable concern over the subterfuge of artificially reddening meat, allowing unwary consumers to falsely conclude that the meat could be fresher than it really is. Republican members seemed disinterested in the matter and several voiced concern that the FDA should spend it’s time with Salmonella rather than CO. The honorable Republican member from Kentucky tried to suggest that as a “simple country doctor”, he was having trouble understanding the issues and pronouncing the words (Rep. Elmer T. Bonehead, R-KY).

Whereas many of the members soft pedaled their questions, Rep. John Dingell, D-Michigan, offered no quarter to the FDA group. In particular he focused his attention of Director of Food Additive Safety, Laura Tarantino.  In earlier testimony, Tarantino was a picture of confidence. Her knowledge of the statutes and the Byzantine procedural details as well as her confidence and instant recall was impressive. However, when Dingell’s time for questions came along, he went after her with rapid fire questions, not allowing time for her to qualify her answers or fend off subtext.  “Just answer the question, yes or no”. It was interesting to see.  Dingell was obviously disgusted with the FDA.  The regulations and protocols that govern FDA movement are very complex and apparently even the administrators have faint grasp on much of it.

Director Tarantino stated that no specific rule-making concerning CO fixatives had been completed because it was still under study.  The working assumption was that CO was considered GRAS- Generally Recognized as Safe. These assumptions are often advanced by industry and accepted with scant examination by FDA.

When asked about the general safety of CO in the product, one FDA manager stated that the added CO posed no hazard. I have no reason to doubt this. But the real issue is consumer deception. I think even libertarians would have to agree that without disclosure of food additives, the market cannot rationally award its demand to preferred providers. You can bank on the notion that consumers are particular about meat and freshness. HR 4167 is a step backwards for consumers and we can only hope that good sense prevails in the House.

Hometown Industry

1 Reply

Ah, the sweet drone of American English. It’s nice to travel, but it’s nicer to be home.

The conference in Bangkok was useful in many ways. For the most part, it gave Th’ Gaussling some needed perspective in an important segment of the Asian chemical market. North America is far from doomed, market-wise, though it is critical that we curb the rate of chemical de-industrialization going on here.

Manufacturing is the bedrock of our economy and one of the major pillars of our culture. I think that the notion of clean telecommuting promoted by the computer industry leads to the expectation that the country can become one large bedroom community, with dirty heavy industry left to banana republics and Asian tigers.

This notion is absurd and self destructive. If paper mills, refineries, and coal mines are too polluting, then industry needs to collaborate better with the chemical engineering departments around the country. If semiconductor and pharmaceutical manufacturing is too costly in the states, then industry needs to collaborate better with our research institutions.

We have too many non-technical MBA’s driving the country and it has to change. Ruthless finance manipulations must be replaced by ruthless technological advance. Delicate, abstract investment contrivances should be superceded by robust scientific and engineering achievement.

Take Control of Hydrocarbon Consumption

7 Replies

The US petrochemical industry has had many challenges post WW-II.  The restructuring of Europe and Japan as well as the US after the war lead to an unprecendented network of markets.  Add to the economic map a whole new spread of advanced technologies resulting from the war effort itself.  Advances in piston and jet engines, rocket propulsion, aeronautical engineering, RADAR, and nuclear energy were a direct result of the war or were highly accelerated therein. 

Postwar, the aforementioned technologies were exploited in the private sector and contributed to an unprecedented economic engine driving the growth of cultures and nations. Generous US spending on cold war military hardware added somewhat to the creation of jobs and spending.  The overall explosion of goods and services not only met the demands of consumers, but raised the expectation that technology would provide an endless parade of new things. 

For the present, the range of frontier for paradigm expansion is dramatically different compared to 50 years ago.  In the context of economics, to a large extent we now live in an age of refinement rather than an age of discovery. Most of what we regard as “new” is actually derivative of more fundamental tools. Transistors, penicillin, and fission can only be introduced to the market once as new technology platforms.  Subsequent innovations are derivative. Excited speculation of the future as a place of flying cars and a cure for cancer gives way to the pragmatic adoption of cars that parallel park themselves  and treatment of cancer as a chronic condition.

Today, hucksters promote ethanol or hydrogen as fuels of the future without a syllables worth of consideration for conservation.  The search for the replacement of fossil fuels is really the search for convenient, high energy density combustible fluids that can be mass produced and shipped in the present distribution system for low unit cost. Instead of finding a new fuel stream, why not try to figure out how to get 2x performance (or 1/2 consumption) out of the hydrocarbons we are already using?

One objection might be that we have already squeezed maximum fuel performance out of the internal combustion engine. Further technological improvements to the Otto Cycle engine going forward are going to be hard to capture.

Another objection is that higher material efficiences are always being sought by the marketplace. A 2x jump in efficiency probably is generally not possible across the board, though isolated exceptions do exist.

But the easy fix, the one that no one mentions is to simply burn less hydrocarbons/ethanol by driving fewer miles. The answer is in the hand that holds the car keys. Consolidate trips. Avoid hopping in your Hummer and driving to 7-11 for cigarettes. Car pool. Demand less cheap-plastic-crap from Big Box Mart.

The main stumbling block is this:  how does a market embrace reduced consumption? I think the answer is that it cannot. But it seems clear that our US consumption trajectory cannot continue indefinitely.

The insatiable demand for hydrocarbons has brought out the worst in us. Our oilman White House has lead us into a thicket of foreign entanglements that may well get much worse before there is any relief.