Teddy Bloggie Blog Blogging

I've been mountain biking recently around the San Francisco Bay area and wanted to share some pictures. Irene also thought it'd be a good idea. I hope my thirst for going out and exploring through mountain biking won't be quenched any time soon and maybe putting these pictures up will keep me going. Anyway, I wish I had some better pictures; like the shrimp drying apparatus at China Camp or the single tree on the beach at Point Reyes. Those pictures are in my head. I hope these will do until either Lisa or I become photo essayists.

Point Reyes

Lisa's riding a Cannondale F300 and I'm riding around on a Gary Fisher Tassajara. I really like my bike, but Lisa has some shifting problems with the front derailleur. I just ordered her a new one, hopefully that'll fix it.

Lake Chabot, Redwood Park

It was a little muddy the day we went to Redwood Park in Oakland, but there were a lot of other bikers on the trails and it was fun getting dirty.

China Camp

The best part of China Camp is the history of the site. Until the legislature of California ran the Chinese out of the shrimping business in the bay area, this small village thrived. They exported dried shrimp and made quite a good life for themselves. Too bad laws were imposed excluding the Chinese from becoming citizens, followed a few years later by outlawing shrimping during the best shrimping months of the year, then outlawing the export of dried shrimp - it didn't stop until the Chinese were driven out of business and left this beautiful area. The history of discrimination being the only scar left on this otherwise amazing place.

As our parents retire, we'll have to pay the debts that they leave for us, including the national debt. It's looking to be quite a debt (without costs of war being factored in). I think taxes in the 50%+ range is in our future. If you like that, you've gotta love Bush Jr.

Hmm, this graph kind of resembles his good friend Ken Lay's work at Enron, doesn't it? But Bush Jr. thinks big and promises to deliver us a bankrupt country - take that Ken Lay! I guess tax cuts now for the wealthy and war in Iraq should make me feel better or at least forget about having to pay this bill in my future. Thanks Dubya.

Why Are We Ruled by These Fools? Department: Archive Entry From Brad DeLong's Webjournal

The stupidity of Bush's foreign policy in one statement: Pre-emptive strikes.

Now, North Korea is using the same principle in their saber-rattling: they're warning the U.S. that any more troop deployment to the Korean Peninsula may provoke a pre-emptive strike against U.S. soldiers stationed in South Korea. N. Korea is using U.S. rhetoric against itself.

If you look at both sides of this war of words, North Korea has a better reason for pre-emptive strikes than we do. Any U.S. buildup is aimed squarely at the North Koreans. It's the Cuban missle crisis for them and we're Cuba. Iraq after all, doesn't pose an immediate threat to us.

It seemed like a bad idea to have a policy of pre-emptive strikes when Bush first uttered those words. It seemed like a bad idea to me at the time to group N. Korea in the same "axis of evil" with Iraq and Iran.

North Korea has called the bluff and raised the ante. North Korea knows we're not interested in fighting a nuclear war with them and they're gearing up for nuclear weapons production. It'll only take a few months for them to have enough plutonium to build the bombs. With 35,000 troops in South Korea, the U.S. doesn't really want to fight an army of a million North Koreans. Sending any more soldiers may force that fight prematurely, perhaps even concurrently with a war in Iraq. That's going to be a lot of unnecessary blood stained on the hands of George W. This is what happens when you wage unilateralist war and cowboy diplomacy. This is what happens when you turn engagment policies of the Clinton administration into the confrontation policies of the Bush administration.

It's not that I don't think we should forcibly remove Saddam Hussein (though I don't think there's evidence of that necessity), it's that I don't trust Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and company to do the job. Way back in 1998, they were pushing for this idea. Nothing has really changed between then and now, except a change in our leadership.

1998 Letter on Iraq Following are excerpts from a 1998 letter to President Bill Clinton from the Project for the New American Century urging the removal of President Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Among the signers were Donald H. Rumsfeld, Paul D. Wolfowitz and R. James Woolsey.

. . . it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties of implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater.

I just checked out the New American Century website and is it ever scary. Click on the link, read the signatories and you'll also get a chill. The signatories of that 1997 statement of principles are in charge, the principles guiding our nation.

It's like a blood brother gang, with the goal of taking over the world. Only, they're serious and out for blood.

Here's an interesting idea from that website whose membership includes our most powerful leaders:

The Bush Doctrine is also notable for what it is not. It is not Clintonian multilateralism; the president did not appeal to the United Nations, profess faith in arms control, or raise hopes for any “peace process.” Nor is it the balance-of-power realism favored by his father.

That scares me. Mainly because I don't believe in hegemonic rule of the world by anyone. Because I do believe in such feel good policies as "multilateralism", "arms control", and let's not forget "peace process". Now you know where George W. Bush is coming from. No wonder we're in such a awful hole.

Alan Greenspan testified before Congress today. I think his overall goal is to urge our politicians to get the U.S. fiscal policy back in order. Although usually on the side of President Bush, he urged a new accounting system to be adopted for making fiscal decisions, going from cash accounting to accrual accounting. Basically, he wants us to think about future liabilities (baby-boomers) vs future revenue sources (our sorry unemployed selves). Something the Bush administration has brushed off, even discontinuing 10-year projections because of a shortage of red ink.

It's also nice to hear Greenspan do his job - clear his throat and tell everyone that we're going to see endless deficits if things keep going the Bush way...

FRB: Testimony, Greenspan -- Monetary policy report to the Congress, U.S. Senate -- February 11, 2003

A general difficulty concerns the very nature of the unified budget. As a cash accounting system, it was adopted in 1968 to provide a comprehensive measure of the funds that move in and out of federal coffers. With a few modifications, it correctly measures the direct effect of federal transactions on national saving. But a cash accounting system is not designed to track new commitments and their translation into future spending and borrowing. For budgets that are largely discretionary, changes in forward commitments do not enter significantly into budget deliberations, and hence the surplus or deficit in the unified budget is a reasonably accurate indicator of the stance of fiscal policy and its effect on saving. But as longer-term commitments have come to dominate tax and spending decisions, such cash accounting has been rendered progressively less meaningful as the principal indicator of the state of our fiscal affairs.

An accrual-based accounting system geared to the longer horizon could be constructed with a reasonable amount of additional effort. In fact, many of the inputs on the outlay side are already available. However, estimates of revenue accruals are not well developed. These include deferred taxes on retirement accounts that are taxable on withdrawal, accrued taxes on unrealized capital gains, and corporate tax accruals. An accrual system would allow us to keep better track of the government's overall accrued obligations and deferred assets. Future benefit obligations and taxes would be recognized as they are incurred rather than when they are paid out by the government.

Reestablishing budget balance will require discipline on both revenue and spending actions, but restraint on spending may prove the more difficult. Tax cuts are limited by the need for the federal government to fund a basic level of services--for example, national defense. No such binding limits constrain spending. If spending growth were to outpace nominal GDP, maintaining budget balance would necessitate progressively higher tax rates that would eventually inhibit the growth in the revenue base on which those rates are imposed. Deficits, possibly ever widening, would be the inevitable outcome.

You know, Colin Powell was the one guy I liked on Bush's foreign policy team. Now I'm not so sure. I know he has to tow the line on this one because he's a soldier, but I'm not buying this whole "if the UN and NATO doesn't go our way, they're making themselves irrelevant." Does that actually work? Let's say they're in a classroom:

Teacher: "Hey Saddam, did you throw that spit-ball?"

Stubborn Saddam: "Uh, nope I didn't do it."

Teacher: "I saw it come from your direction... you better hand me whatever's in your hand."

McDonald: "I saw him do it. I'll go beat his damn face in cuz he's lying."

Teacher: "No McDonald, you're always so violent. Let's wait and see what Saddam has to say..."

Stubborn Saddam: "...I...uh..."

McDonald: impatiently interrupting "I'll rip his face off. I'll do it. Let me do it and take his candy."

Teacher: "Relax Big Mac, you're aways getting in trouble. You beat up Afghan yesterday and accidently gave Canada a black eye, remember?"

McDonald: "Hey, this whole instructional environment thing will be irrelevant if you don't let me beat up Saddam today. He did it. I know he did. I can't wait anymore!"

Rest of Class: "Dude, you should kick-back..."

I guess it's not exactly like that, but in a way, it is. It's the hot-heads vs. the cool heads. I see it like this: we're rushing to wage war while our staunchest allies of the past are holding things up because they believe in a diplomatic, peaceful solution.

The UN, especially, was created by us to solve problems through diplomacy. Half of diplomacy is letting hot heads cool off by taking up time. NATO, on the other hand, was an alliance for mutual defense.

Here we are going on the offensive and waging war... no wonder those institutions are becoming irrelevant. It's not because of France, Belgium or Germany. If there's one reason the UN and NATO would become irrelevant it's because they're set up as institutions for peaceful resolutions; not to be commandeered by the hot heads.

North Carolina Congressman Howard Coble recently said on a radio program that Japanese Americans were interned for their own safety.

"We were at war. They [Japanese-Americans] were an endangered species," Coble said. "For many of these Japanese-Americans, it wasn't safe for them to be on the street.

"Some probably were intent on doing harm to us, just as some of these Arab-Americans are probably intent on doing harm to us."

More outrageous is that he's chairman of the House Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security subcommittee. Not only is Rep. Coble historically inaccurate, but his remarks are racist. As the article below mentions: records show there were no widespread incidents of violence against Japanese-Americans before their detention, and no Japanese-Americans in the United States were accused of espionage against America during World War II. However, some Germans were involved in espionage. It leads to the obvious question why weren't any German internment camps established? Or Italian? Reagan and Bush Sr. have both acknowledged the racist motivations of Japanese internment during World War II. It's silly that Coble doesn't have the same common sense.

To do something about this, go here.

The Sun News | 02/13/2003 | Asian-Americans want Rep. Coble to give up post

Powell had a tapestry copy of Pablo Picasso's famous Guernica fresco covered when he went to the U.N. Security Council. For my part in the weekend worldwide anti-war protest I think I'll post this picture because it shows the misery, death, and stupidity of war - something the administration has not been honest about. They depict the Iraqi invasion as something that will be sterile and swift. If that's not a lie, it certainly shows the wishful blindness of the Bush administration.

(click on the picture to enlarge)

February 16th: Sometimes you have to stop talking and start walking...

The United Nations was established after WWII to create a body that would peacefully resolve international issues, issues such as environmental protection, terrorism, child labor, weapons, health, etc. It consists of many differnet organizations: UNESCO, UNDP, WHO, General Assembly, and the Security Council among others that I'm not remembering right now. It does a pretty good job facilitating debates between countries based on how fractured world opinion can be on any particular issue. What I don't understand is how the U.S. has been able to damage its importance and reputation. Conservatives in this country do not like the U.N. because it represents some form of compromise with the world community and it's too much give for them to stomach. They don't mind the alternative, although they don't really propose or have an alternative to the United Nations.

I personally think it's not only Iraq that's playing a game of shadow puppets with the U.N. but also the U.S. Ever since the last Gulf War, there has been a radical fringe group of political and commercial interests that wanted to go back and destroy Iraq. They tried to persuade Clinton to wage war. (see New American Century) They don't really care if the Security Council can get Iraq to disarm peacefully, they want to see the destruction of the current Iraqi regime nonetheless. They point out that it's a malicious regime with Saddam, the despot, at the top. They're right of course, except, there are many other similar regimes in the world that we don't care so much about. There just isn't the same political and commercial interests in going to war with other dictators, Pakistan for example (our friend in the war against terror). Sometimes Americans forget that the enemy of our enemy may still be our enemy.

"If Iraq exported Brocolli, we wouldn't be going to war" - a sign at the past weekend's demonstration in San Francisco, a sad but true statement. It's true because of the two, Iraq and North Korea, the nation that poses a larger, more immediate threat to the U.S. is North Korea. All the rationale for immediate war against Iraq are shadows on the wall. You have that irritating fact that most terrorists came from Saudi Arabia (again our friend in the war against terror). The world laughed at Colin Powell when he tried to link Al Qaeda with Iraq because everyone knows it's not true. Bin Laden likes to called the U.S. and Hussein infidels and sometimes in the same breath. G.W. Bush has recently dropped charges of nuclear weapons because there's just no evidence of Iraq in possession of nuclear weapons. Anyway, somehow that radical fringe group got control of the White House, Congress, and the rest will be history.

Back to the U.N...

Recently, the U.S. has been trying to get Iraq to agree with security council resolutions to disarm. But there's a certain amount of hypocrisy that's eluded all the news that I've been reading and watching. How is it that it's unacceptable for Iraq to disregard U.N. mandates, but it's perfectly fine for the U.S. to do so? Why is there wide acceptance that it is okay if President G.W. Bush says, "Another resolution would be nice, but it's not necessary."? While if Hussein had said, "Who cares what the U.N. thinks..." there would be outrage and disgust. Millions would march in the streets and demand that Iraq bend to the will of the international community.

Although millions marched last weekend to demand the U.S. to do the same, Bush casually brushed off the will of the international community. I'm outraged and disgusted that the only measure of "moral clarity" for this administration is whether others agree with Bush... "You're either with us or against us" says G.W. Bush.

It's okay for Israel to have nuclear weapons, it's okay for the U.S. to flaunt world opinion, it's okay for the U.S. to bribe Turkish support for $36 billion, it's okay for the U.S. to act pre-emptively, and it's okay for the U.S. to put anyone but U.S. officials on trial for war crimes (thus sabotaging the creation of the international criminal court). Why aren't more people disgusted and outraged at the blatant hypocrisy?

Anti-war food for thought:

"If Iraq exported Broccoli, We wouldn't be going to WAR!"

"If McVeigh bombed the WTC, would we bomb Michigan?"

"You need courage not to drop bombs, otherwise your war will be endless."

I'll keep updating this, but please add your favorites in the comments.

A thought crossed my desk.

If I had lived in the middle-ages and I, only I, had the stuff that's now splayed on my desk, I would be a rich man. I could record music, play music, record video, show moving images, print pictures, and print books.

And those monks would've been so jealous... What would've taken them days to do by hand I can crank out at about 10 pages per minute. Compounded economic and technological growth really seems incredible when you think about it...

A few years ago I thought I didn't like Paul Krugman. I even told Prof. DeLong that when I proposed to teach a class on Robert Reich's Work of Nations since I didn't know any better - I was a dumb kid. Well, I'm wrong. He's the only voice that's making any sense to me nowadays. He's still the know-it-all, but he's gained the responsibility to say what the newspapers won't print, and to counterbalance Bush administrations bully pulpit. Also, he uses his know-it-all-ness to great effect. I'll give two examples:

Check out Steven Weber's The Success of Open Source . It's pretty interesting reading on the abundance economy that's been created by internet techologies. It's about a 7 minute read though and at times heavy on the econ jargon - you've been forewarned.

I like open source. In fact, Movable Type, which we use to do these blogs, has a sort of open source community that'll help you out if you're in a jam. For example, I was trying to think of a way to rank blogs based on newest entry but I didn't know how to get started. Well, Kristine "kadyellebee" or other knowledgeable bloggers at Movable Type's support forum will usually help you out with these sort of problems. Try that with Microsoft or any other big vendor and all you'll get is the answer machine. Open source allows you to build your code using the freely available code that's been developed elsewhere. People are willing to share and sharing lowers the "cost" of accomplishing your piece of code. What do they get in return? Your gratitude AND the further dissemination of Movable Type, a positive externality. As more people use Movable Type and more people contribute to its code and broaden its features set, it'll increase the "value" of the software for each and every user - including the people who are making contributions. Free riding in this case is even a good thing because there's zero cost to copying a file and having a larger user base adds value to the product. Imagine being the sole user of any software product - what a nightmare that would be! Who would you turn to for questions? Who would upgrade it when it becomes obsolete? Open source can also work in other realms. MIT has started an open source site dedicated to publishing open source academic materials. I need to start an open source media site where people can add text, video, and music and have it freely distributed. That'd be great. Anyone know if that's already available?

By the way, here is the site if it were listed by most recent entry.

United States feels that it's just and reasonable to not sign the anti-land mine treaty, and now it's saying there shouldn't be an anti-smoking treaty (for free speach reasons).

I think the land mine ban is the more important of the two, but if developing countries want to ban cigarette advertising or give precedence to tobacco-control measures in free trade laws then let them have it, why get in the way?

Why? Because if there's ever been a government that's been bought off by big money it's got to be the Bush Administration. Phillip Morris - check, Halliburton - check, ExxonMobil - check...

You can't be a hero without making a sacrifice:

U.S. Diplomat's Letter of Resignation

February 27, 2003

The following is the text of John Brady Kiesling's letter of resignation to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell. Mr. Kiesling is a career diplomat who has served in United States embassies from Tel Aviv to Casablanca to Yerevan.

Dear Mr. Secretary:

I am writing you to submit my resignation from the Foreign Service of the United States and from my position as Political Counselor in U.S. Embassy Athens, effective March 7. I do so with a heavy heart. The baggage of my upbringing included a felt obligation to give something back to my country. Service as a U.S. diplomat was a dream job. I was paid to understand foreign languages and cultures, to seek out diplomats, politicians, scholars and journalists, and to persuade them that U.S. interests and theirs fundamentally coincided. My faith in my country and its values was the most powerful weapon in my diplomatic arsenal.