From the Washington Post:
Former Comverse Technology chief executive Jacob “Kobi” Alexander was declared a fugitive by the FBI, which issued an alert calling for his arrest. An international manhunt was launched late last month, shortly before authorities unsealed a criminal complaint.
Around election time pundits begin to fret about low voter turnout in the United States. Norman Ornstein has even called for mandatory voting, complete with sanctions. The voters should be, as it were, forced to be free.
Ilya Somin at the Volokh Conspiracy shows why such concerns are misplaced. We should be worrying, Ilya says, about the rational ignorance of voters who do go to the polls. His longer argument about voter ignorance may be found here.
The federal program that provides legal help to poor Americans turns away half of its applicants for lack of resources. But that hasn’t stopped its executives from lavishing expensive meals, chauffeur‐driven cars and foreign trips on themselves.
Agency documents obtained by The Associated Press detail the luxuries that executives of the Legal Services Corp. have given themselves with federal money — from $14 “Death by Chocolate” desserts to $400 chauffeured rides to locations within cab distance of their offices.
The government‐funded corporation also has a spacious headquarters in Washington’s tony Georgetown district — with views of the Potomac River and a rent significantly higher than other tenants in the same building.
Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, is upset. Maybe at last he can turn his attention from oversight of private charities and universities to his actual job, oversight of federal spending.
Kansas City has followed the lead of Denver and Ontario, Canada in instituting a ban on pit bulls. Any pit bulls found in the city will either be turned over to shelters outside the city or, more likely, euthanized.
Breed-specific prohibitions are a bad idea for a variety of reasons, but the most glaring is that the most common target of these laws -- the "pit bull" -- isn't really a breed, but a generic name given to dogs with those features we've come to associated with aggression. The "pit bull" very generally refers to the American Staffordshire Terrier, but can include a number of breeds with similar features, including the most recent Best in Show at the Westminster Kennel Club and, more importantly, one of my dogs. (We were repeatedly warned when she was a puppy that she might be mistaken for a pit bull, but she's the sweetest, most harmless dog I've ever known, unless you happen to be a rug or a pair of shoes).
What's more, as the New Yorker's Malcolm Gladwell has pointed out, it's not even clear that pit bulls deserve their reputation:
A Georgia-based group called the American Temperament Test Society has put twenty-five thousand dogs through a ten-part standardized drill designed to assess a dog’s stability, shyness, aggressiveness, and friendliness in the company of people. A handler takes a dog on a six-foot lead and judges its reaction to stimuli such as gunshots, an umbrella opening, and a weirdly dressed stranger approaching in a threatening way. Eighty-four per cent of the pit bulls that have been given the test have passed, which ranks pit bulls ahead of beagles, Airedales, bearded collies, and all but one variety of dachshund. “We have tested somewhere around a thousand pit-bull-type dogs,” Carl Herkstroeter, the president of the A.T.T.S., says. “I’ve tested half of them. And of the number I’ve tested I have disqualified one pit bull because of aggressive tendencies. They have done extremely well. They have a good temperament. They are very good with children.”
Pit bulls do boast strong jaws that can lock into place. But many breeds can deliver a nasty bite when provoked. The attention directed at pit bulls seems more due to their trendiness, not to any unique aggressiveness in their genetics. The tough guy dog du jour was once the equally powerful Rottweiler.
Though prospects for broad reform of the U.S. antidumping law are tied to the now‐moribund Doha Round of trade negotiations, curtailing antidumping abuse is still viable through other channels. Yesterday, the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization ruled that the U.S. dumping calculation technique known as “zeroing” violates the WTO’s Antidumping Agreement.
In determining margins of dumping (which dictate the prospective antidumping duties applied to affected imports), the Department of Commerce typically compares a foreign exporter’s U.S. and home market prices. There are usually dozens or hundreds (sometimes thousands) of comparisons made, each generating a margin of dumping, which can be positive, negative or zero.
Before averaging the individual dumping margins to produce an overall antidumping duty rate, the DOC perpetrates some sleight of hand by setting all of the negative dumping margins to zero. This, of course, has the effect of seriously inflating the overall rate and dissuading subsequent importation.
Zeroing is probably the most distortive of a multitude of methodological tricks the DOC undertakes in the name of fighting unfair trade. In previous research, Brink Lindsey and I looked at 18 actual dumping cases and found that had the DOC not engaged in zeroing, the antidumping duty rates would have been, on average, 89 percent lower.
If the United States complies with yesterday’s ruling and ceases the practice in all cases prospectively, the antidumping law will remain a nuisance, but its capacity to seriously obstruct trade will be weakened considerably.
It’s no secret that President Bush doesn’t take well to criticism (or even actual non‐filtered news), and doesn’t do much to break out of the groupthink bubble down on Pennsylvania Ave. But now for some reason the administration has decided to start pretending that they seek outside counsel. Back in June, the president held a much‐ballyhooed “war council” at Camp David that was portrayed as a broad‐minded president seeking to mix it up with a variety of opposing intellectuals. The scholars on that panel were
Frederick Kagan, AEI, full‐throated neocon
Eliot Cohen, SAIS, full‐throated neocon
Robert Kaplan, The Atlantic, advocate of American empire
Michael Vickers, former CIA, vocal war proponent turned tactical critic
So much for intellectual diversity at that summit. But now the White House is touting another panel of critics, held earlier this week, that is supposed to help Bush figure out what the heck’s going on in Iraq. Here’s how spinmeister Tony Snow spun the meeting:
What the president does in sessions like this is invite people to express very openly their candid views on things. They play a role in the sense that they add to the president’s knowledge and understanding of the region, they introduce new ideas, and they allow him to question closely people who spend the vast majority of their time studying issues that are of keen concern to him, and, at this point, to the country.
We do not invite in “amen choruses.’’ What you do is you invite smart people in who have different points of view… And that’s a very useful service. You don’t want people who are simply saying exactly the same thing.
Right, you wouldn’t want them to say exactly the same thing. But trouble is, it seems that The Decider didn’t even want the experts’ views. Here’s Vali Nasr, one of the participants in the recent panel, on what he did and didn’t contribute:
I didn’t give an opinion about policy. They didn’t ask if it was a good policy or not.
I wonder why.
The U.S. Farm Bill is due to be redrafted in the first half of next year and Cato will be part of what is shaping up to be a lively debate. The recent round of WTO negotiations were one hope for reducing the costly distortions that agricultural subsidies impose, but we all know what happened there. (The WTO news release can be found here if you are not up to speed).
The 2007 Farm Bill, then, provides the next best opportunity for much needed reform. But, considering the noises coming from Congressmen, we reformers have our work cut out. Consider this recent pearl, offered by Sen. Chuck Hagel (R‑Neb.):“The fact is we know there is emergency assistance required every year, whether it’s for drought, floods or whatever natural cause…” Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language defines an emergency as “a sudden, urgent, usually unforeseen occurrence or occasion requiring immediate action.” I don’t think something (a different ‘something’ all the time, according to the Senator) that happens with certainty every year fits that definition.
Senator Hagel went on to say…“Why don’t we craft a farm bill that is visionary, relevant, real and deals with the challenges we know agriculture producers deal with?” I am sure the Senator meant the question to be rhetorical, but I agree with the Senator — why don’t we craft a Farm Bill that is visionary, relevant and real. A vision of farmers making a living from markets, relevant to the fact of the significant cost of these programs, and real — as in, real different to the last farm bill (a huge step backwards from the relatively tame 1996 farm bill). As for the challenges, surely farmers, like other small (and not so small) businesses should be able to deal with challenges unassisted by government (read: taxpayer and consumer) support?
I’m an Australian so I know something about drought. I’m also an economist, so I know something about comparative advantage. Maybe if every year is a disaster year in some place, then farmers shouldn’t be farming there.…