jawfish

Amazon’s Wish List Laid Bare
john posted in politics & culture, technologies on January 25th, 2006

A friend just sent this article on applefritter listing exactly how to collect the data from 100,000’s of Amazon.com wish-lists, and pinpoint the homes of people who like certain books.

If you aren’t a computer person just skip the computer code and technique in the article. Take my assurance that the technique is simple, free, and millions of folks could do it, even I.

One point of the exercise is to show that flatfooted one-semester of college G-men can do this too. This process of sorting through vast amounts of disparate data is called “data mining.” Not only can people of everyday skill level do it, but the FBI, the NSA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and whoever is even more secret, can force companies likeYahoo, Google, and AOL to deliver the data, including more sensitive data; agencies can sniff Internet traffic ( basically eavesdrop ) and process the results; they can do the same for phone calls, and they already have taps inside the major telephone switches. They can also simply pay Yahoo to data mine, thats Yahoo’s business. This is not new news, but it’s important to remind people about it, when the President is vigorously asserting his right to do whatever he pleases in the name of the bogus War on Terror.

An example of naivete at the highest level of the press:
On Monday’s Fresh Air show, Terry Gross interviewed James Risen on his new book, The State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration. He is an expert journalist with high-level contacts at the NSA, and he still thinks the NSA listens to a mere 200 phone calls at a time. I think because he doesn’t understand the technology, Risen fails to see the magnitude of the threat to privacy. The truth is, the NSA can listen to thousands or maybe millions of calls at once using computers searching for keywords, selected calls can then be archived for a human listener. After all, they have been tapping the undersea phone cables for decades, originally to spy on the Soviets during the Cold War.

What principle should we follow when guessing about what the spooks and coppers and apparatchiks are up to?
I firmly believe we should look at what’s possible with ordinary equipment, extrapolate for what could be done with supercomputers and some very smart people, allow for lots of sloppiness, false negatives and positives, and assume that that is what they are doing.

Review: The Power of Nightmares
john posted in politics & culture on January 25th, 2006

Available as a down load from The Internet Archive
BBC site description

The Power of Nightmares is a three-part BBC documentary which parallels the rise of Neo-Conservatives in America and Revolutionary Islamic Fundamentalists in the Middle East. Whether you accept all the film’s theses or not, there are striking similarities between the movements. More important are observations of how they feed off each other, how they use the other as scapegoat and phantom enemy.

As a film: There are the usual too-fast cuts, fancy camera footwork, amped-up music, and randomly metaphorical images that seem to be in style at the moment. The Brits call this “tarted-up.” The narrator’s voice is a bit murky, and the interviews are cut very short. I saw it in a theater at the University, and most people sat through all three hours. As yet there is no rental DVD, so the digitally minded will have to download to their PC. It’s no Sorrow and the Pity, but it does have interesting footage of the main characters and events.

It’s not advocating anything, instead it’s a historical critique of what we’ve been told, and how and why we were told. It’s a debunking of the myth of the War on Terror.

The series’ main parallels between Neo-Cons and Radical Islamists:

They arose at about the same time, the 1950’s and 60’s.

Each springs from an emotional sense that Western liberalism is somehow “rotten” and “decaying.”

Each prefers autocratic control to rampant individualism.

Each uses religion to define social rules, and to rally the faithful to the cause.

Each views the other as a vast, dangerous conspiracy.

Each uses a phantom enemy, Al Queda or Western Zionist Liberalism, to gain power.

Neo-Con, CIA, and various other Americans met with most of the future Al Queda in Afghanistan while fighting the Russians. Americans and Jihadists believe that they defeated the Russians, while in truth the foreign Islamicists did little fighting, and the Americans mostly supplied some training and the all-important high-tech weapons.

The series’ most interesting assertions:

There is no Al Queda organization, even the name was invented in the West. There is only a ragtag bunch in loose contact with other terrorist groups.

Originally the radical Islamists wanted to provoke revolution in Egypt and Algeria, but repeatedly failed to achieve any popular support. They only focussed on attacking Western targets after attempts in the Middle East failed.

The Bush and Blair administrations create and manipulate an irrational fear of terror in order to stay in power and to gain control over internal power strutures.

My observations, not necessarily based on the series:
There is something weird about both the Neo-Cons and the Islamic radicals. They lack any sense of humor or compassion of course, but in a greater sense they lack humaness. There is a kind of paranoid, self-defining fanaticism in them, as if they are incapable of fun, or love, or even sex. They remind me of Maoists or the Spanish Inquisitors more than anything else. The farther they go, the less information they let in, the more determined thay are to be absolutely right in the face of contradictory evidence. Perhaps we can just refer to The Banality of Evil as the definitive description of the type.

While watching the documentary I had a sense of the motivations behind the Islamic terrorists for the first time. The universal question after 9-11, “why attack the West?” was never really answered for me. The series depicts the history of the radical Islamicists as a progression from unsuccessful attempts at popular revolt, followed by imprisonment and torture, followed by ever-increasing radicalism and exile. What do failed revolutionaries do but up the ante until they are noticed. They go from blowing up soldiers to local civilians, to foreign tourists, finally in desperation they turn to attacks on foreign soil. The panicky reaction of the Bush Administration, coupled with a crack-down, and invasion of Iraq, were the best present the radical Islamicists could get. Finally they were important.

New Orleans: Restoration and Restitutioncomments
john posted in politics & culture on January 18th, 2006

New Orleans’ mayor Nagin has announced a plan to rebuild the city. It’s a framework really, in which residents are encouraged to demonstrate the will and ability to return, before the city declares a commitment to the worst neighborhoods.

Should New Orleans be rebuilt at all?

Should we spend federal money on the rebuilding?

What’s actually possible in the current situation?

What do we owe New Orleans?

---

So what gives me the right to question the high-falutin’ predictions of massive restoration for dear old feckless New Orleans?

Well, it’s my tax money thats going to pay for all or almost all of the reconstruction, that’s why. Given a choice, I might prefer that some of that money go somewhere else. If New Orleans wants to float bonds and fund their own work, then go right ahead.

LA Times article on the Mayor’s announcement.

NPR’s- OnPoint show featured a liberal economist, Ed Glaeser, who suggests paying displaced residents a lump sum, rather than rebuilding unsupportable neighborhoods. Scott Cowen, President of Tulane University, the Times-Picayune City Editor, David Meeks, and the callers present a fair cross-section of highly emotional reaction. The show is interesting because it displays both a broadly impractical reaction to the disaster, plus a straightforward analysis that does not take political considerations into account. There is, of course, a measure of the usual angry hand-wringing.

Glaeser, the economist, infuriates the locals on the NPR show by pointing out that the New Orleans economy is profoundly moribund, with few oil or dock workers resident, some tourism and the rest health and service industries. Various people decry the loss of neighborhoods and demand to have them back, without any conception it seems, that neighborhoods require infrastructure, police, fire, schools, recreation, housing, and jobs. All of that is gone in much of the city, along with the tax base in the flooded areas, and there is little prospect of better jobs.

---

Meanwhile the facts as nearly as I can see from a distance are these:

Some substantial part of the city is currently ruined, possibly the majority.

A very large area is geologically unsound, below sea level, sinking, with levees that sink faster than they can be raised.

The protective buffer marshes in the Gulf have been destroyed over the years, and there is a huge, but inactive plan to restore them.

The city’s tax base is much smaller, and there is little prospect of one large enough to support its past population with services of a quality expected in the rest of the country.

Cleaning up the mess- bulldozing, carting, and removing cars is a monumental task far beyond the ability of the old city, let alone today’s. The DMV can’t even handle the paperwork for the abandoned cars, the city hasn’t enough landfill for the destroyed houses.

The Corps of Engineers will be charged with rebuilding the levees, but they are traditionally unreceptive to more sophisticated projects like marsh restoration and natural management which are essential to long-term hurricane protection.

Global warming is making hurricanes a little or a lot worse than those in the past.

The nation is rapidly bankrupting itself in the Iraq war, at a cost which could have restored the entire state of Louisiana in happier times.

New Orleans is not exhibiting a tough can-do culture. One may appear, or the disaster may be too great for any city. .

New housing built with private dollars will not accept any low-income renters. New houses cannot be built cheap enough for low-income owners.

Whatever new architecture and neighborhoods are built, they will have, at best, an ersatz character like South St Seaport in Manhattan, or Fisherman’s Wharf in San Francisco. They may attempt faux seediness like the House of Blues chain.

If the Mayor can count votes, he will have concluded that there are none down in the flooded areas, all the votes are on high ground.

The Bush administration has neither the money, nor the will, nor the interest really, to back the sort of public-private partnership that will be required to restore infrastructure for two hundred thousand people.

Louisiana has neither the financial nor management resources to run an unprecedented construction project.

---

What could be done, given the money and will?

If you accept the list of facts and assumptions above, then a smaller New Orleans could be salvaged with roughly half its former population. The marshes can be partially restored and some levees removed or fortified. Presumably, a tourism economy similar to Las Vegas could support the smaller city. Large tracts could be returned to marsh or lake. The industrial infrastructure at the port and the oil companies can take care of itself. Once long-term physical security is assured, private capital can re-develop salvageable areas. Possibly something more interesting than cheap sprawl could be built, but the record across America indicates otherwise.

Really determined home-owners with no mortgage and construction skills could strip their houses to the frame and rebuild, but a little of that and it becomes clear that it’s easier to demo the old house and start over with a better design. Maybe they’ll change the building code and create a raised indigenous architecture on pilings.

None of this can be done without robust pragmatic leadership of the kind that bailed out New York in its fiscal crisis. The leadership, while politically savvy, must be insulated from everyday politics, and be seen as incorruptible.

What seems impossible?

Re-creating the poor neighborhoods is not possible, and most people wouldn’t even see it as desirable. Private money will not seek out indigent renters or home-buyers, and the public record of low-income housing is not hopeful. Perhaps it doesn’t need to be said that they won’t re-populate areas with indigent residents, especially when so much construction is required in middle-class neighborhoods. Federal support is unlikely to better the tepid response so far, unless there is an impact on the Republican congressional count.

Honeyed talk of multi-culturalism and diversity may be raising unrealistic expectations. It’s just a sop to the poor folks that lost all their possessions, and have been moved somewhere else. Oh there will be museums built for this or that great musician, with much grandstanding and ribbon-cutting. Some construction jobs may benefit a few previously unemployed residents, but I would guess that many of those will be filled by workers from out-of-state.

In then end, after the political waltz, the advocacy, and the dramatic coverage, it comes down to the economy. Cities are the product of their economy. Cities are the ecology which both nutures the economy and is produced by it. The great cultural life of cities always comes in those which have or once had robust economies. If it’s true that there isn’t much beyond the tourist economy in New Orleans, then its hard to see major revival short of a Las Vegas style extravaganza.

What do we Americans owe to our countrymen in New Orleans?

Some of the displaced home owners have some insurance, but I have seen no data on how much. Its a sure bet that virtually none are paying their mortgages or taxes, so their loans will be foreclosed when the moritorium period is over. Without credit they will not be able to borrow and rebuild. Renters also lost all their possessions, and both groups lost their cars, jobs, friends and connections.

Why did they buy or rent in such a fragile place? Well because everybody around them did, and the Corps of Engineers, the building department and the banks said it was proper. No home buyer can be expected to outguess these institutions, so I say they are owed restitution for their mortgages, equity, and personal goods. I believe the federal government owes us all emergency support, and so resettlement, clean-up, social and health services seem completely appropriate for a time. Localities that accept indigent residents deserve federal help, too, though the border states have never gotten help with the immigration problem.

Many newspapers are reporting that ex-residents want “their neighborhoods back” which I interpret to mean, they want to live among the same bonds of family and friends and return to the colorful traditions of music and Mardi Gras, in the same place. Maybe its the shock of the natural and man-made disaster, but even months afterward there seems a lack of understanding that the physical neighborhoods are gone. Maybe there are just a few loud voices, overly represented by the media, ever hungry for conflict. In any case they can’t rebuild without a very large infusion of federal money. Without restitution, the homeowners will lose both equity and credit, turning them into renters. Without a tax base the city can’t provide services.

What do we tell our representatives to do about New Orleans?

Before any federal reconstruction money is spent, the following steps should be required:

The Corps of Engineers and the state agencies have to agree on a long-term delta management plan that includes massive restoration of marshes, and removal of as many levees as possible.

An independent board, as called for in Mayor Nagin’s announcement, has to be created to oversee construction, planning, and expenditure. Something structured roughly like the Port Authority of NY-NJ must have the power of condemnation, and political insulation.

The city of New Orleans and the other governmental units must show at least a plan to reform their police, fire, and maintenance staff.

There must be an understanding that the city will condemn most of the land below sea level, and return it to parks or a naturally flooded state.

There must be a system of flood insurance to protect the rest of us from having to do this all over again when the next hurricane comes.

Some type of restitution must be made for the failure to survive a category three storm and the failure to provide decent emergency services. Unfortunately there is no way to punish the governments at fault, because they will have to provide for the reconstruction, so the lessons will be moral unless voters choose to throw the bums out.

Unfortunately, the people of Louisiana have got to take it or leave it. They haven’t got much leverage.

---

What others are saying:

Salon ( second part requires paid subscription, but worth a free look)

The Nation wonders if rebuilding money could go to the people of New Orleans.

The New Yorker on the utter collapse of the Police Department.

Bloomburg reports on Bush’s call for private rebuilding. Much to read between his lines.

The Cost of the War in Iraq
john posted in politics & culture on January 12th, 2006

Linda Bilmes of Harvard and Joseph E. Stiglitz, of Columbia recently published (Boston Globe coverage) a lengthy piece on the economic costs of the war in Iraq. In it they attempt to count the direct costs and estimate the macro-economic costs. Their conclusion is $1-2trillion.

Neo-Con apologists will nit-pick the numbers in an effort to throw up a smoke screen. But whether you think $800billion or $2trillion is correct is oddly irrelevant. The fact is the war is costing 10 to 20 times what we were told, a number so vast that it dwarfs the re-construction of New Orleans. The money is being spent in Iraq, largely on foreign subcontractors, where it has no Keynesian effect on the American economy. It’s hard to see how the current climate of crony capitalism isn’t producing vast corruption and inefficiency both in Iraq and here. It is a commonplace to observe that our children will be left with a deficit from this war long after Iraq has regenerated itself. The monumental arrogance and stupidity of the Neo-Cons who created this war out of lies, phony spy reports, and oil greed, is still being met with apathy and knee-jerk patriotism. There’s a pall of denial over the land, while politicians on both sides scramble to make sure everybody feels good about themselves. Why should we? We have the most corrupt and inept administration in a century, the biggest government spender ever, and we are still shoveling down the bon-bons and watching TV while the house burns.

---

There have been other more or less thorough analyses:

William Nordhaus, who did not favor the war, presents a scholarly analysis from 2002-2003. The worst-case scenario predicts a mere $140billion in military appropriations ( currently over $350billion appropriated) and a total macro economic costs near $2trillion.

A scholarly paper ( pdf ) from 2003 from the University of Chicago using Congressional Budget Office estimates makes risibly low estimates of manpower needed and direct costs. Thats uh, Milton Friedman’s school isn’t it? Maybe this war can go bankrupt and the free market can supply a more efficient version.

A source of current direct costs: NationalPriorities, not including appropriations unspent.

A CNN article from 2003 where OMB Director Daniels is quoted:

“White House Office of Management and Budget Director Mitch Daniels told The New York Times in an interview published Tuesday that such a conflict could cost $50 billion to $60 billion — the price tag of the 1991 Persian Gulf War. But Trent Duffy, an OMB spokesman, said Daniels did not intend to imply in the Times interview that $50 billion to $60 billion was a hard White House estimate. “He said it could — could — be $60 billion,” Duffy said (emphasis mine). “It is impossible to know what any military campaign would ultimately cost. The only cost estimate we know of in this arena is the Persian Gulf War, and that was a $60 billion event.”

---

Fiddling while Rome burns ain’t even in it.