Thursday, March 27, 2008

How to Think and Work

I post this for general interest. It's from MIT's Technology review. I came across it and like it a lot. I do only some of it regularly and need to do more. How about you? Here is all of it:

How to Think

Managing brain resources in an age of complexity.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007

When I applied for my faculty job at the MIT Media Lab, I had to write a teaching statement. One of the things I proposed was to teach a class called "How to Think," which would focus on how to be creative, thoughtful, and powerful in a world where problems are extremely complex, targets are continuously moving, and our brains often seem like nodes of enormous networks that constantly reconfigure. In the process of thinking about this, I composed 10 rules, which I sometimes share with students. I've listed them here, followed by some practical advice on implementation.

1. Synthesize new ideas constantly. Never read passively. Annotate, model, think, and synthesize while you read, even when you're reading what you conceive to be introductory stuff. That way, you will always aim towards understanding things at a resolution fine enough for you to be creative.

2. Learn how to learn (rapidly). One of the most important talents for the 21st century is the ability to learn almost anything instantly, so cultivate this talent. Be able to rapidly prototype ideas. Know how your brain works. (I often need a 20-minute power nap after loading a lot into my brain, followed by half a cup of coffee. Knowing how my brain operates enables me to use it well.)

3. Work backward from your goal. Or else you may never get there. If you work forward, you may invent something profound--or you might not. If you work backward, then you have at least directed your efforts at something important to you.

4. Always have a long-term plan. Even if you change it every day. The act of making the plan alone is worth it. And even if you revise it often, you're guaranteed to be learning something.

5. Make contingency maps. Draw all the things you need to do on a big piece of paper, and find out which things depend on other things. Then, find the things that are not dependent on anything but have the most dependents, and finish them first.

6. Collaborate.

7. Make your mistakes quickly. You may mess things up on the first try, but do it fast, and then move on. Document what led to the error so that you learn what to recognize, and then move on. Get the mistakes out of the way. As Shakespeare put it, "Our doubts are traitors, and make us lose the good we oft might win, by fearing to attempt."

8. As you develop skills, write up best-practices protocols. That way, when you return to something you've done, you can make it routine. Instinctualize conscious control.

9. Document everything obsessively. If you don't record it, it may never have an impact on the world. Much of creativity is learning how to see things properly. Most profound scientific discoveries are surprises. But if you don't document and digest every observation and learn to trust your eyes, then you will not know when you have seen a surprise.

10. Keep it simple. If it looks like something hard to engineer, it probably is. If you can spend two days thinking of ways to make it 10 times simpler, do it. It will work better, be more reliable, and have a bigger impact on the world. And learn, if only to know what has failed before. Remember the old saying, "Six months in the lab can save an afternoon in the library."

Two practical notes. The first is in the arena of time management. I really like what I call logarithmic time planning, in which events that are close at hand are scheduled with finer resolution than events that are far off. For example, things that happen tomorrow should be scheduled down to the minute, things that happen next week should be scheduled down to the hour, and things that happen next year should be scheduled down to the day. Why do all calendar programs force you to pick the exact minute something happens when you are trying to schedule it a year out? I just use a word processor to schedule all my events, tasks, and commitments, with resolution fading away the farther I look into the future. (It would be nice, though, to have a software tool that would gently help you make the schedule higher-resolution as time passes...)

The second practical note: I find it really useful to write and draw while talking with someone, composing conversation summaries on pieces of paper or pages of notepads. I often use plenty of color annotation to highlight salient points. At the end of the conversation, I digitally photograph the piece of paper so that I capture the entire flow of the conversation and the thoughts that emerged. The person I've conversed with usually gets to keep the original piece of paper, and the digital photograph is uploaded to my computer for keyword tagging and archiving. This way I can call up all the images, sketches, ideas, references, and action items from a brief note that I took during a five-minute meeting at a coffee shop years ago--at a touch, on my laptop. With 10-megapixel cameras costing just over $100, you can easily capture a dozen full pages in a single shot, in just a second.

Cite as: Boyden, E. S. "How to Think." Ed Boyden's Blog. Technology Review. 11/13/07. (http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/boyden/21925/).

The Clinton Campaign, a "Useful Tally"

I am sure a similar tally could be put together based on the Obama campaign, but I doubt it would be as cumulatively so negative and ruthless as this one.

Delegate Math

Many of our dumbest pundits (Joe Scarborough, et al) sneer at the"the Math" of the Democratic nomination like it is some nerdy inconvenience. This analysis is the best I've seen that clearly demonstrates that it's over for Hillary. Shut up and sit down already.

I also wonder, and haven't seen much on this, if the money-raising is starting to dry up for her. I suspect it is, which will be another big factor in finally ending this bloodletting.

The best point in the analysis -- it's not close:

According to the best available count, Obama currently leads among pledged delegates 1,415.5 to 1,253.5, a margin of 162 with 18 delegates currently for Edwards and 566 left to be determined. In terms of percentages, this translates to Obama 52.7%--46.7% Clinton, with 82.6% reporting. In any other campaign, if a candidate led by 6% with 83% reporting, all major news outlets would project that candidate as the winner. 6.0% is greater than the margin by which Bill Clinton won the 1992 election, and also greater than the margin by which Republicans won the 2002 midterms. I don't know anyone who follows politics who considers those close campaigns.

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Enough to give One Pause

The following is from the Financial Times, perhaps the top financial paper in the world and certainly no progressive outlet. This opinion piece today predicts what a McCain presidency would be like for Foreign policy. The author predicts more belligerency than under Bush. It may be overstatement for effect, but, again, consider the subject and realistically wonder. The key point is McCain's temperament, which by all accounts is volatile. "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran -- heh, heh." I include the whole article because I'm not sure how long access will last.

Why we should fear a McCain presidency

By Anatol Lieven

Published: March 24 2008 19:12 | Last updated: March 25 2008 16:27

It may seem incredible to say this, given past experience, but a few years from now Europe and the world could be looking back at the Bush administration with nostalgia. This possibility will arise if the US elects Senator John McCain as president in November.

Over the years the US has inserted itself into potential flashpoints in different parts of the world. The Republican party is now about to put forward a natural incendiary as the man to deal with those flashpoints.

The problem that Mr McCain poses stems from his ideology, his policies and above all his personality. His ideology, like that of his chief advisers, is neo-conservative. In the past, Mr McCain was considered to be an old-style conservative realist. Today, the role of the realists on his team is merely decorative.

Driven in part by his intense commitment to the Iraq war, Mr McCain has relied more on neo-conservatives such as his close friend William Kristol, the Weekly Standard editor. His chief foreign policy adviser is Randy Scheunemann, another leading neo-conservative and a founder of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. Mr McCain shares their belief in what Mr Kristol has called “national greatness conservatism”. In 1999, Mr McCain declared: “The US is the indispensable nation because we have proven to be the greatest force for good in human history . . . We have every intention of continuing to use our primacy in world affairs for humanity’s benefit.”

Mr McCain’s promises, during last week’s visit to London, to listen more to America’s European allies, need to be taken with a giant pinch of salt. There is, in fact, no evidence that he would be prepared to alter any important US policy at Europe’s request.

Reflecting the neo-conservative programme of spreading democracy by force, Mr McCain declared in 2000: “I’d institute a policy that I call ‘rogue state rollback’. I would arm, train, equip, both from without and from within, forces that would eventually overthrow the governments and install free and democratically elected governments.” Mr McCain advocates attacking Iran if necessary in order to prevent it developing nuclear weapons, and last year was filmed singing “Bomb, bomb Iran” to the tune of the Beach Boys’ “Barbara Ann”.

Mr McCain suffers from more than the usual degree of US establishment hatred of Russia, coupled with a particular degree of sympathy for Georgia and the restoration of Georgian rule over Abkhazia and South Ossetia. He advocates the expulsion of Russia from the Group of Eight leading industrialised nations and, like Mr Scheunemann, is a strong supporter of early Nato membership for Georgia and Ukraine. Mr Scheunemann has accused even Condoleezza Rice, secretary of state, of “appeasement” of Russia. Nato expansion exemplifies the potential of a McCain presidency. Apart from the threat of Russian reprisals, if the Georgians thought that in a war they could rely on US support, they might be tempted to start one. A McCain presidency would give them good reason to have faith in US support.

Mr McCain’s policies would not be so worrying were it not for his notorious quickness to fury in the face of perceived insults to himself or his country. Even Thad Cochran, a fellow Republican senator, has said: “I certainly know no other president since I’ve been here who’s had a temperament like that.”

For all his bellicosity, President George W. Bush has known how to deal cautiously and diplomatically with China and even Russia. Could we rely on Mr McCain to do the same?

Mr McCain exemplifies “Jacksonian nationalism” – after Andrew Jackson, the 19th-century Indian-fighter and president – and the Scots-Irish military tradition from which both men sprung. As Mr McCain’s superb courage in North Vietnamese captivity and his honourable opposition to torture by US forces demonstrate, he also possesses the virtues of that tradition. Then again, some of the greatest catastrophes of the 20th century were caused by brave, honourable men with a passionate sense of national mission.

Not just US voters, but European governments, should use the next nine months to ponder the consequences if Mr McCain is elected and how they could either prevent a McCain administration from pursuing pyromaniac policies or, if necessary, protect Europe from the ensuing conflagrations.

The writer is a professor at King’s College, London, and a senior fellow of the New America Foundation. His book, America Right or Wrong, analyses US nationalism

Saturday, March 22, 2008

A Humorous McCain Quiz That Is Really Not So Funny

The New Yorker every week has at least one humor piece. This is a recent one that is based on John McCain's actions and statements. It's a very clever head-shaker. But by the time I completed it (and realized it is based on facts), questioning this guy's suitability to be President is absolutely necessary. By all means, take the quiz!

Friday, March 21, 2008

More on Ambassador Peck and Rev. Wright

CNN has caught on too. Here's more on the Wright sermon quoting Ambassador Peck.

After the quote, the Rev. went on to say:

“Maybe we need to declare war on AIDS. In five minutes the Congress found $40 billion to rebuild New York and the families that died in sudden death, do you think we can find the money to make medicine available for people who are dying a slow death? Maybe we need to declare war on the nation’s healthcare system that leaves the nation’s poor with no health coverage? Maybe we need to declare war on the mishandled educational system and provide quality education for everybody, every citizen, based on their ability to learn, not their ability to pay. This is a time for social transformation.”

See also evidence that Wright helped treat LBJ during surgery.

Doesn't sound like a "black militant" to me....

Rev. Wright was QUOTING Ambassador Peck of the Reagan Administration

This is amazing to me. The Rev. Wright "chickens coming home to roost" speech which is the focus of so much controversy is actually Wright quoting from Ambassador Peck of the Reagan Administration, who himself was referencing Malcom X.

Watch the speech, particularly the 3 minute mark.

"Fox News LIED about Rev. Wright. See 9/11 video in context watch!

youtube.com — Rev. Wright's message is quite different from what Fox News reported it to be. His "chicken's roost" comment, for example, was a quote from a white US Ambassador who annoyed the Fox News commentators with his remarks concerning 9/11. Wright said the attack on the US was an unthinkable act of violence, and urged Americans to realign with God."



Now Obama needs to disavow Peck too, I guess? Can you say, "manufactured controversy?"



Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Detroit through the Lens of Obama's Speech

Juan Cole, the U of M Professor now well-known for his blog on the Middle east, comments here on Obama's speech referencing the tragic collapse of Detroit as evidence of the result and as the necessity for the promise. This, in particular, hit home to me (Read the whole thing.):

Obama says we have to stop hiding the incompleteness of our struggle with race inequality from ourselves. We have to recognize how traumatized African Americans are by the memory of Jim Crow. We have to recognize how whiteness shapes the working class's perception of blacks. Most importantly, he argues that we should not be hobbled by the past, that we have to see how fluid and dynamic American society is, such that things can change. Attitudes can be transformed on a large scale, with macro effects.

Living where I live, I could not agree more. Race shapes the Detroit area very powerfully. It is the most segregated area in the country. The Detroit News did an excellent series on the Cost of Segregation to the area a few years ago. Our white suburbs are very white. In Livonia it is 96%. The African-American neighborhoods in Detroit are very black....

What Barack Obama is saying is that Detroit is not doomed to be America's most miserable city. The white suburbs and the African-American neighborhoods can come together in new synergies. But only if we face up squarely to what is driving our social pathology and economic doldrums. We have been stuck in a paradigm of insuperable difference.

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Oh Oh. McCain is Flunking Middle East 101

McCain made such a fundamental error in describing the situation in the Middle East yesterday that just it cannot be overlooked. He apparently has more than once cited that Iran is helping Al Qaeda, which would be Shia helping Sunni, a laughable combination. No expert agrees. Is he dumb, senile, or pandering to the knee-jerk anti-Muslim crowd? None of the choices are pleasant to think about. This bears watching carefully.

Thankfully, with increasing frequency, McCain reminds us that he really doesn’t know what he’s talking about most of the time.

Sen. John McCain, traveling in the Middle East to promote his foreign policy expertise, misidentified in remarks Tuesday which broad category of Iraqi extremists are allegedly receiving support from Iran.

He said several times that Iran, a predominately Shiite country, was supplying the mostly Sunni militant group, al-Qaeda. In fact, officials have said they believe Iran is helping Shiite extremists in Iraq.

Speaking to reporters in Amman, the Jordanian capital, McCain said he and two Senate colleagues traveling with him continue to be concerned about Iranian operatives “taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back.”

Pressed to elaborate, McCain said it was “common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that’s well known. And it’s unfortunate.”

All of this is, of course, wrong. Al Qaeda is Sunni; Iran is Shiite. This is “common knowledge.” McCain was speaking with authority about the basics in the Middle East, and getting the regional dynamic backwards.

This happens quite a bit with the Republican candidate.

The WaPo’s Michael Shear added, “The mistake threatened to undermine McCain’s argument that his decades of foreign policy experience make him the natural choice to lead a country at war with terrorists. In recent days, McCain has repeatedly said his intimate knowledge of foreign policy make him the best equipped to answer a phone ringing in the White House late at night.”

Sunday, March 16, 2008

A View of Obama from a Legal Colleague

Cass Sunstein is a well-known and prolific legal scholar and author who was a colleague of Barack Obama's at the University of Chicago Law School. Today he writes a commentary on his friendship with Obama and I offer it here to provide insight into Obama's cool, analytical, and open-minded style. Interesting nugget: "Those of us who have long known Obama are impressed and not a little amazed by his rhetorical skills. Who could have expected that our colleague, a teacher of law, is able to inspire large crowds?"

This is the Barack Obama I have known for nearly 15 years -- a careful and evenhanded analyst of law and policy, unusually attentive to multiple points of view.

The University of Chicago Law School is by far the most conservative of the great American law schools. It helped to provide the academic foundations for many positions of the Reagan administration.

But at the University of Chicago, Obama is liked and admired by both Republicans and Democrats. Some local Reagan enthusiasts are Obama supporters. Why? It doesn't hurt that he's a great guy, with a personal touch and a lot of warmth. It certainly helps that he is exceptionally able.

But niceness and ability are only part of the story. Obama has a genuinely independent mind, he's a terrific listener and he goes wherever reason takes him.

The Fifth Anniversary

This week we celebrate (using the verb usually associated with anniversaries is itself sad and ridiculous) the fifth anniversary of the War in Iraq. What has it brought us? McClatchy, the one major newspaper chain that never drank the cheer-leading Kool Aid, summarizes where we stand five years on, and it is a litany of losses and costs.

From the perspective of five years, it is easy to see the severe damage to America's prestige, military and economic power, reputation for competence, and, most importantly, credibility. We are seen as musclebound, mendacious, and stupid. What we say is simply not to be believed. This is seen every day in domestic politics, but it is even more pronounced overseas. The giant has lost its way and its not clear how a new president is going to find it any time soon.

"The winner of the 2008 elections will command U.S. forces still at war in Iraq, Afghanistan and against elusive terrorists with a deadly reach. The U.S. economy will remain burdened. ... America's moral leadership and decision-making competence will continue to be questioned," begins a study of foreign-policy choices for the next president, which a Georgetown University task force released last month.

"Restored respect will come only with fresh demonstrations of competence," the study said.

The numbers don't inspire confidence: Oil prices are at an all-time high, the dollar at new lows against the euro. Surveys find the United States' popularity and respect slipping in every part of the globe except Africa. A poll of 3,400 active and retired U.S. military officers by Foreign Policy magazine found that 88 percent agreed with the statement that "The war in Iraq has stretched the U.S. military dangerously thin."

"Since 9/11, the United States has been exporting fear and anger rather than the more traditional values of hope and optimism. Suspicions of American power have run deep," Richard Armitage, deputy secretary of state under Bush, and Joseph Nye, a Pentagon official under President Clinton, wrote in a December report published by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

"At the core of the problem is that America has made the war on terrorism the central component of its global engagement," they wrote.

Thursday, March 13, 2008

Some Good Questions on the Spitzer Case

Scott Horton is a really good on ethics issues in Department of Justice. Here he asks sharp questions about the Spitzer investigation. The issue is not that Spitzer hired a prostitute or that he should have stepped down. He did and he should have. The issue is: did the DOJ go after a person, not a crime. Clearly they did, as Horton lays out. Here is the money quote:

The report of the investigation shows that prosecutors and investigators had assembled their case against the prostitution ring by mid-January. But they held back. They were waiting for their true prey, which was not the prostitution ring. They were out for Eliot Spitzer. He apparently booked another transaction on the eve of Valentine’s Day. The allocation of resources for this operation again was massive, and included a stake-out of Spitzer’s hotel room and comprehensive surveillance. Again, the prosecution team was not out after a crime, it was out after a person.

The key questions that need to be asked go to the extraordinary allocation of resources and manpower for this operation and the application of level standards. Here again, the Bush Justice Department has one set of standards when Republican officials fall into a prostitution ring, and an entirely different set when the target is a Democrat who is threatening the Republican Party’s power base in Albany. We just need to look over the “D.C. Madam” case, which caught in its snare a high-level official of the Bush Administration and a Republican senator. But the Bush Justice Department’s attitude towards that case couldn’t be more different. It is deferential towards the customers and has shown no interest in bringing charges against any of them. It has also engaged in extraordinary somersaults to keep the names of the Republicans caught up in the case out of the media. The two cases, compared with care, point convincingly to a partisan political double standard.

The Bush Justice Department complains it has no resources to investigate or deal with the case of Jamie Leigh Jones, a woman from Houston who was gang-raped, brutalized and held hostage by American contractors in Iraq. It claims it has no resources to deal with dozens of similar cases involving rape and assault by or against U.S. citizens. It has no resources to deal with hundreds of cases involving massive contract fraud, tallying into the billions of dollars, in Iraq. Its prosecution of white-collar crime across the country has fallen through the floor. But this same Justice Department allocates millions in resources to ensnare a prominent Democratic politician in a sex tryst at the Mayflower Hotel. This evidences an extremely curious set of priorities—priorities which are suspiciously driven by a partisan politics, not a sober and responsible interest in law enforcement.

A Good Summary of Where the Democratic Race Stands

The Carpetbagger has put together a very useful summary of numbers vs. spin in the Democratic race. You can't help but conclude that it is over. Clinton can't conceivably win, unless Obama some how blows up, as in the old political saw, "is caught in bed with a dead woman or live boy." But Obama is not going to blow up with race-baiting, experience-touting slurs. He's way too cool. It's over, Hillary. Be classy and fold your tent.

There are still eight states and two territories yet to vote. Couldn’t Clinton yet claim the popular vote lead? There are multiple reports explaining why that’s highly unlikely.

I suppose different Dems will have different priorities in terms of metrics, but if I were a superdelegate, I’d rank the data points in this order:

1. Pledged delegates
2. Popular votes
3. States won
4. Money raised
5. Polls

If one candidate has most, or all, of these metrics wrapped up, then it’s time to end the nominating process, start bringing the party together behind the winner, and get ready for the general election.

If Clinton can’t catch Obama in the popular vote totals, then we’re getting pretty close to that point.

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Great Chart on Measures to Reduce Global Warming

I came across this chart (Chart 4 of the linked slide show) in Business Week (!) and thought it told an important story. Two major conclusions:
  1. Huge, and cost-effective, emissions savings are available in the technology of residential and commercial buildings.
  2. Hybrid vehicles are not cost effective, by a long shot.
There is a lot of work to be done, and we're not doing much of it.

Saturday, March 8, 2008

That Mocked Obama Speech of 2002

Hillary has said repeatedly, in concert with her famous 3 AM phone call ad, that she has "been there" and all Obama has done is give a speech in 2002. Here is that speech. Meanwhile, Hillary answered the call to war with Iraq by giving Cheney and Rumsfeld a blank check. And we're supposed to feel more secure with her?
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, 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 US 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.

Friday, March 7, 2008

Numbers vs Myth

Myth has it that Republicans hold a distinct traditional advantage over Democrats, as a brand, in the areas of morality, taxes, and the economy. Apparently the American people are not buying it. They are choosing to believe their own lying eyes instead, based on the pathetic performance in all these areas by the wing-nut wizards and company over the last seven years. The tracking Pew poll reflects the numbers, not the myth. For example:

Please tell me if you think the REPUBLICAN Party or the DEMOCRATIC Party could do a better job in each of the following areas. Which party could do a better job of [see below]?"

Foreign policy: Democrats +5

Immigration: Demorats + 5

Iraq: Democrats +10

Taxes: Democrats +12

Morality: Democrats +10

Economy: Democrats +19

Education: Democrats + 29

Health care: Democrats +30

Reforming government: Democrats +25

Energy: Democrats +34

Environment: Democrats +44

Thursday, March 6, 2008

McCain and Iraq

Nobody has ever called Steve Chapman a progressive liberal. Even he , however, has had enough of Iraq and McCain's promises to keep on going as we have. This is his summary, but read the whole thing:

McCain says the current "strategy is succeeding in Iraq." His apparent definition of success is that American forces will stay on in huge numbers as long as necessary to keep violence within acceptable limits. We were told we had to increase our numbers so we could leave. Turns out we had to increase our numbers so we could stay.

Five years after the Iraq invasion, we've suffered more than 30,000 dead and wounded troops, incurred trillions in costs and found that Iraqis are unwilling to overcome their most basic divisions. And no end is in sight. If you're grateful for that, thank John McCain.


Wednesday, March 5, 2008

The Straight Talk Express Derailed?

John McCain cultivates the image and reputation of being the unusual -- a straight-talking politician. He's gone a little wobbly on this since he has been running for President, trying to woo the conservative "base". David Brooks wrote a column last week, defending his somewhat more crooked talk of recent years, that required ignoring or discounting a lot of evidence that even Brooks cited.

The Carpetbagger has updated a running list of documented flip-flops by St. McCain. Any politician is going to have a record of flip-flops to some degree. Any thinking person will change his or her mind on some things over time, of course. McCains's lengthy recent record, however, should at least disqualify him from his status, according to Brooks, of one who "has also battled concentrated power more doggedly than any other legislator." Oy.

Sunday, March 2, 2008

Some Facts on Halliburton and Iraq

Tomdispatch notes some facts about the value of contracts awarded to Halliburton, and its spin-off KBR, since the Iraq war began. Of course, we all know who ran Halliburton before becoming Vice-President, but I'm sure there is no cause and effect relationship (cough!). Also recall that although Cheney has put all of his investments into trust while he holds office, he knows perfectly well that his stock options are tied to Halliburton's financial performance. The spin-off of KBR was due in part to try to insulate, by obfuscating, Halliburton and Cheney, from the total size of this largess from the US government.

Kellogg, Brown & Root (KBR): Until April 2007 a subsidiary of Halliburton, KBR garnered $20.1 billion in Iraq contracts from the Bush administration. The company reported a $2.3 billion profit in 2006. According to a Center for Public Integrity investigation, KBR was the single biggest corporate winner from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In terms of the dollar value of its Iraq contracts, it received nine times as much as the second largest Iraq contractor, DynCorp.

Halliburton: In 2002, Halliburton was number 37 on the Pentagon's list of top 100 contractors with $500 million in contracts. By 2006, it was number six, with $6.1 billion in contracts, an increase of more than 1,000%.

Brookings Institution Senior Fellow Peter W. Singer puts this in context, noting in a September 2007 policy paper that "the amount paid to Halliburton-KBR for just that period is roughly three times what the U.S. government paid to fight the entire 1991 Persian Gulf War. When putting other wars into current dollar amounts, the U.S. government paid Halliburton about $7 billion more than it cost the United States to fight the American Revolution, the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, and the Spanish American War combined."

Saturday, March 1, 2008

Another Disastrous Consequence of the Bush Years

The Carpetbagger, along with Talking Points Memo, connect the dots on the consequences of all the unfilled appointments piling up for Executive branch appointments. This is the result of taking seriously Grover Norquist's famous comment about "shrinking government until it is small enough to drown in the bathtub." One way to do it is to essentially shut down the government for lack of leadership. This is certainly an impeachable offense, not enforcing the laws of the land, but the Bushies assume nobody will take them on for not executing their sworn responsibilities with less than a year left.

This is the modern Republican Party, dedicated to not running the government because, as Reagan taught them all, "government is bad". If these guys get in again, the toll of disasters unattended and services deteriorated will increase exponentially. McCain, as the de facto leader now of this bankrupt and corrupt party, signs up for the whole philosophy of drowning the shrunken baby.