Amusing Anomalies

There has been quite a bit that has happened since I last posted here.  No not changes in my personal life, that's been rather stable, I'm still in Berkeley, I'm still married to the very same wonderful woman, and I am still working for the same employer.  I'm talking about changes in the political landscape.  

Labels: Barack Obama, blogging, change

Today on Meet the Press, there was an interesting exchange between Tim Russert and John Edwards concerning Edwards' vote to Authorize the Use of Military Force in Iraq. Edwards has been telling any and everyone who listens to him these days that his vote was a mistake. Russert, seeing an opportunity cued up a speech that Barack Obama gave on October 26, 2002 that was eerily prescient. In that Speech Obama said:

Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him. But
I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

Obama gets good marks for getting it right but I think there is a great deal of smoke concerning the vote to authorize the use of military force in Iraq. A lot of the smoke comes from not recognizing what the vote actually did and secondly not recognizing the context in which the vote was taken.

First of all the setting. Prior to the AUMF, Saddam Hussein refused to allow inspectors back into Iraq. Given that there was considerable intelligence that could lead one to conclude that he had WMD, it legitimately caused a lot of people a great deal of concern. So when the vote occurred the following things were known. First, there was considerable intelligence that suggested that Saddam possessed WMD and second, Saddam was refusing to allow inspectors into the country to verify his claims that he did not possess them. In this context, voting to give the president the authority to use military force made a great deal of sense. Saddam wasn't budging and we had concerns about potential WMD programs. In addition, providing the President authority created additional leverage to force Saddam to cooperate. Consequently, I think that given the context of what was going on, providing George W. Bush authority was not a clear error. Especially if one assumes that the President would use the authority prudently.

Congress gives the President authority and what happens? Congress votes on September 11th 2002 and Saddam caves and agrees to allow inspectors on September 17th. So the vote worked and Saddam blinked. Given this, it seems to me that the vote itself isn't a mistake. If one assumes the President would act prudently.

Okay what happens next? The UN Inspectors enter the country and begin the inspection process. As part of the inspection process the inspectors discover that some of the intelligence that we were relying on was erroneous. Despite that the administration starts their public relations campaign toward the war.

On March 18, 2003, President Bush says the following.

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. ~~George Bush March 18, 2003

However, the Defense Intelligence Agency apparently believed there was some doubt. Two months after the September 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency report (see September 2002)—which found there was no conclusive evidence Iraq has chemical weapons—another secret document titled, “Iraq’s Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Weapon and Missile Program: Progress, Prospects, and Potential Vulnerabilities,” is completed. It also says in very clear terms that there is no solid proof that Iraq has chemical weapons.

So exactly what is the administration relying on when they say there was no doubt? It seems that there was “some doubt”. The lie was telling the American people that there was “no doubt”. They seemed to have intentionally oversold the intelligence information that they had.
The Bush administration decides that it is going to invade Iraq prior to the completion of the UN Inspection process and without another vote before the UN. At this point, one might legitimately conclude that their vote on September 11th was a mistake because the assumption that the President was going to act prudently was in error.

With respect to Obama being lucky. I don't think Obama was lucky I think he was right and I think he had a reason to believe that Saddam was contained. Why did Obama have reason to believe that Saddam was contained? Because that is just what the White House told the American people before 911. In fact, there was a paucity of evidence to suggest that Saddam broke containment. On the issue of sectarian violence, that too was predictable. In fact the CIA was informing the administration during this period that forming a western style democracy in Iraq was likely to fail.

Labels: AUMF, Barack Obama, John Edwards

Well not quite invisible, but pretty invisible lately. I took a long hiatus because I became obsessed with politics. In my obsession with politics I became so enamored with it that I read a large number of books, watched continues news shows, read blogs from near and far. So much so that in reading continuously I left myself no time to write about it. I'm better now. Call me recovering.

So I'm back. Hopefully for an extended stay. Since I last posted the Democrats are in charge of both houses of Congress; the debacle in Iraq has become an even greater debacle; and the Indianapolis Colts have won the Superbowl. Congratulations to Tony Dungy.

The Becker-Posner Blog: The Gasoline Price Spike: Another Nonissue--Posner

Posner, in almost a thought spew, makes the case why an increase in gasoline prices is good. Not surprisingly I agree, for all the reasons Posner articulated. It's worth a read.

Data on Phone Calls Monitored

I just want to say I'm shocked and surprised that the government would attempt to track every phone call made by every American citizen in this country.

I would never have thought that such a thing could happen.

Okay now that I got that piece of sarcasm out of the way.

The Washington Post story gives the particulars detailing the outrage by some members of Congress. However, an ABC news poll indicates that 66-percent of Americans approve of such tracking. All I can say is that we're becoming a nation of scared sheep.

The Seattle Times: Sports: Pac-10 to investigate family residence of Reggie Bush

NCAA college athletics, yes the activity designed to build character and strength, the noble institution of young people playing their hearts out for the glory of their schools, the roar of hyped up crowds, and for $757,000 homes.

Uh, $757,000 homes...? Can't be. But yes it appears so. The Miami Herald and the Associated Press penned a story suggesting that the University of Southern California's Heisman Trophy winner, Reggie Bush's family lived a $757,000 home in Spring Valley California during his Junior year at USC. Now for those of you outside of California, a $757,000 home is not a palatial estate, in Cali $757,000 would get you a decent 3 bedroom 2 bath home in a decent neighborhood in Berkeley. Yet in any part of the country free rent on a $757,000 home is nothing to sneeze at.

The home apparently is owned by an individual named Michael Michaels, who coincidentally was "planning to form a marketing and contract agency that would feature Reggie Bush as a client". I'm sure the plans to form a marketing company anchored by Bush had nothing to do with the rent free residence...but I've been wrong before.

After having this arrangement exposed in the press, USC has forwarded the matter to the Pac-10 for investigation. The NCAA is "likely" to conduct an investigation as well. I'm shocked and nonplused. Money and payola tied to self interest? In college sports? Can't be happening. Well at least Reggie is going to hit paydirt after the draft. You'd hate to see his family put out on the street. Although mysteriously, since the story broke a moving van has uh...picked up all the furniture and moved it out of the house.

I just love college sports. It's just much more pure than the Professional leagues.

The Economics of Hybrid Technology

One of the most confusing and possibly the most controversial issues surrounding hybrid technology are relative economic merits of the technology. There has been a lot written about this subject and the conclusions run from wholly with merit, to break-even to wholly without merit. The conclusion about the beneficial aspects of hybrid technology vary greatly, because those analyzing the technology make entirely different assumptions and individually value different things.

For example, the gasoline advantage of hybrid technology is heavily dependent on what people expect gasoline prices will be in the future. Hybrid technology looks like a sure loser if prices average around $2.65 per gallon, they look like a sure winner at $4.50 per gallon. Depending on where gasoline prices are headed in the future hybrid purchasers may or may not be making a wise economic choice.

Beyond assessing basic petroleum economics, comparing hybrid technology vehicle to conventional gasoline powered engines is often not an "apples to apples" analysis. For example, the Honda Accord Hybrid and the Toyota Highlander Hybrid are substantially more expensive than their non-hybrid counterparts. However, each vehicle offers a set of features distinct from the non-hybrid models and each hybrid vehicle, contrary to stereotype, has substantially more power than their non-hybrid cousins. The Honda Accord Hybrid only offers marginal fuel advantages over the standard Honda Accord EX. The Toyota Highlander Hybrid offers substantial both fuel economy gains and 53hp of additional power. Another example, the hybrid version of the Highlander offers a silky smooth CVT transmission, in contrast the non-hybrid version offers a conventional automatic transmission.

Other aspects of hybrid technology represent value, but not to the owner. Hybrids, all things being equal, consume less gasoline and produce less pollution than their non-hybrid counterparts. Those benefits are not fully captured by the owner of the vehicle but are generally spread throughout society. It is almost impossible to economically quantify this potential value. But I suspect that it exceeds the value of the tax credit that the government provides to hybrid users.

I mentioned earlier that we were in the process of buying a new car. The photograph on the right is a fair representation of the car we purchased, a Toyota Highlander Hybrid. The decision to purchase the Highlander Hybrid involved an evaluation of personal need, personal preference, and a bit of political philosophy.

Let me start with a bit of a description of the car. The Toyota Highlander Hybrid is a mid-sized sports utility vehicle with approximately a 268 horsepower hybrid technology electric/internal combustion engine powerplant (As a comparison point, our 2002 Subaru Forester had a rated 165 hp engine). Essentially the car has both a gas and an electric engine that sometime operate in tandem or separately to power the vehicle. The particular model we have can seat 7, (if two of the 7 people are midgets) and our model is a two-wheel drive vehicle (although there is a awd version). The Highlander Hybrid has an efficient, if not exciting interior and is comfortable and reasonably well designed.

The Dance of the Engines

The feature that stands out for this vehicle is the gas/electric hybrid engine and the technology that surrounds it. Rather than getting into the details of the technology I'll discuss how the technology is experienced by the driver. The first time you notice when you turn the key on this SUV is that "nothing happens". I mean, the dash board instruments come on and a ready light blinks on, but you don't hear a starter and you don't hear the familiar rumble of an internal combustion engine (ICE) turning on. Why? The ICE doesn't turn on. The electric motor is what powers the vehicle initially (although if the battery is low when you turn the car on, the ICE will turn on to charge it). So you sit there in silence for a moment and finally convince yourself that the car is really running and press the pedal gently---the car moves forward.

After you get the car moving a bit you'll fell an almost imperceptible tremor--that tremor is a sign that the ICE engine has decided to show up. Here's where it gets interesting. As you drive the ICE and the electric motor start this interesting little tango, sometimes together, sometimes apart. For example, if you're going up a hill using mostly gas power, if you need step on the pedal for a quick burst of speed you'll see the electric motor kick in to provide additional power. When the batteries that power the electric motor start to run out of charge, the gas engine sends power to the batteries. If you're moving at a decent cruising speed and the electric batteries don't need a charge, the ICE will cut off and the electric motor will be used to power the vehicle.

One of the big jokes in the hybrid community (and strangely enough in the internet world---there is such a thing), is that a man let's his brother-in-law borrow his car. Fifteen minutes later he gets a call. It's his brother-in-law. His brother-in-law informs him that he's driving the car to the shop because the engine keeps cutting off at the stop light.

When you stop the Highlander Hybrid at a stop light a couple of interesting things happen. First as you brake, the energy that goes into slowing down the car is transferred into charging the battery. This contributes to conserving fuel and it reduces wear on your brakes. The second interesting thing is that once you stop, the ICE turns off, conserving fuel.

What is particularly fascinating about this dance is that it pretty much occurs in background. You notice it all, but it doesn't overwhelm you. However, if you are aware of how this dance occurs, you can learn to take advantage of it. The car provides incredible freedback. It tells you instantaneously what your current mpg performance is, it tells you when the car switches from gas to electric, from electric to battery, etc. In this sense, you as the driver can choose to become part of the relationship between the technology, the engines. Or if you choose to you can pretty much ignore the whole thing and take advantage of the enhancements at the margin. Driver participation is important. The EPA rates the 2wd Highlander Hybrid at 33 city and 28 highway. Consumer reports rated it at 22 mpg. Right at the moment, in mixed mode driving, city and highway I'm averageing 27.6 mpg. The differences I suspect are all related to how well you take advantage 0f the technology.

I plan to address some of the policy implications of hybrid technology in the future. I figure, I did all that research, I might as well put it to some use.

It's been a long time since I've put in an entry. Contrary to some rumors, my absence is wholly unrelated to the Stanley Cup. (Are they playing the Stanley Cup Playoffs yet?), I haven't been abducted by aliens, nor have I done the wise thing and given up on blogging. All I can say is that life sometimes catches up and more mundane things have to be attended to. In this case the other things involve doing research for a new car, (since bought) getting details ironed out about taxes (since filed), and learning all the ends and outs about scooter lifts: interior-exterior, powered-manual, (still to be determined).

In addition to these amazingly exciting activities, I've been catching up on reading. Two books, not surprisingly, are about Iraq. The third, more surprisingly is about the bible.

The first book, America at the crossroads: Democracy, Power and the Neoconservative Legacy, is Francis Fukuyama's look at the neoconservative movement. Fukuyama's book takes both a historical and analytical look at the neoconservative political movement and declares it a suicide. Fukuyama, an academician type, is not an academician type writer, meaning, reading this book was an absolute joy, not a trudge through deep swamp. It's clean, concise and refreshing short--and yet the analysis is subtle. I'd highly recommend it.

The second book, Cobra II, by Michael R. Gordon (free registration required NYTimes), of the New York Times, and General Bernard E. Trainor, ret. USMC. Cobra II is a dense book, looking into every nook and cranny of the Iraq invasion. From it's planning to execution and the beginning of the occupation. After reading this book you will fully understand why US Generals are calling for the sacking of Donald Rumsfeld. It's another book I'd highly recommend.

The third book, Misquoting Jesus, is a book by Bart D. Ehrman. Bart Ehrman, chairs the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Ehrman's history is rather fascinating, he started out as a biblical literalist that started his religious education at strongly fundamentalist educational institutions. He learned Greek, Latin and various other languages necessary to read the ancient text, and discovered much to his surprise that 1) no one has the original text and 2) the text we do have suffers from mistranslations, changes, edits and errors. Ehrman's conclusion? If there was an original text of the bible, we sure in the world don't know what it is now and really have no means of discovering it. Ehrman is now an agnostic. Read the book if you have a chance, you're unlikely to be disappointed.

I will be blogging more in the near future and I will probably touch on energy policy and transportation policy a bit more in the future. The car buying decision forced me to do research on those issues *grin*