Thai-phoon

What could drive someone to kill Buddhist monks?

Violence between the Thai government and Muslim terrorists has claimed more than 550 people this year including several monks. Two days ago, the government "negligently" suffocated 78 Muslim protesters in southern Thailand. Teachers in the region are demanding bullet-proof vests because of the death of three of their colleagues.

Muslims are a minority in Thailand, a mostly Buddhist country.

It appears that no single organization orchestrates the attacks which began in January. The Thai government initially claimed that "bandits" were responsible and then begrudgingly acknowledged there was a separatist movement (which some suspect to be tied to Jemaah Islamiah). Thailand has also accused Malaysia of involvement with the rebel groups.

What's interesting about the conflict is how it challenges the traditional distinction between war and crime. Uncertainty of what to label the situation led to Thailand's waffling on who was in charge between civilian ministers and army generals, a confusion that only contributed to the region's instability. This mirrors the problems many countries face in addressing terrorism and handling terrorists (are they criminals or soldiers?). Perhaps it's time for a third way.

That was fast.

is back for round 3!

Finally get to learn the value of a college education...

Did you even watch season 2?

Money Holes

DD, you've forced me to show my true colors.

Putting in more money - particularly in DC public schools - is absolutely NOT a solution. Though the city is the murder capital, it is also one of the highest in spending per pupil (see Table 5 of this NEA report). Yet, Washington remains near the bottom in test scores.

Another telling example is the Kansas City school system. Because of a judicial desegregation order, the board kicked up property taxes to throw $2 billion into the public schools there. An Olympic-swimming-pool-top-notch-labs-and-curriculum later, the schools still score low on state achievement tests and have high drop out rates.

These failures have led to the growing interest in vouchers and the public school choice provision of the No Child Left Behind Act. Money is not irrelevant. But after a certain point, when you still have no results you have to start wondering about the skills of the managers.

(Disclaimer: I actually worked on school vouchers this past summer with Alliance for School Choice and will be writing a law journal article on this subject.)

Man, where's your holiday spirit, Grinchy? What's another $500 million or so towards baseball? And it's gonna pay huge dividends...

You know all those summer days, where you just sit on your bum, watching the tube and figuring out something to liven up the afternoon? Well, now you can sit on your behind for three hours AND spend $20 to watch the same game you could've seen on TV!


I think he was an Orioles fan.

Ok, full discloure--I'm stoked to the point of bypassing old loyalties that the Nats are in town. My family's had O's season tickets since forever, but I already have more pieces of Nationals gear in my closet than Orioles (only one t-shirt to zero Orioles stuff, but still). Yeah, you can root for both teams, but it's kind of cool to be present at the creation of a new franchise, a la the Ravens. Check in with me when Washington's lost 95 games, though; my December idealism likely will fade to a September blase.

Hopefully my heart's not clouding my head...but I do find your argument flawed. The baseball money wasn't waiting around to save our schools, fight crime, or underwrite any noble cause. It's the kind of cash that only appears for these special civic projects that pay off the masses. Right or wrong, I don't know, but I also question whether you can throw money at failing schools and make them better. Look at all the different tactics (private sector involvement, co-ops, etc.) that have succeeded or failed at improving inner city education independent of a massive capital investment. Really, America's public school system is in need of a major reshuffling, particularly in the urban areas, but we can leave that conversation to these guys for now.

Also, I know Zimbalist and the other economists' analysis is that professional sports represent a minimal or negative impact on a city's economy...but in contrast to my empirical nature, my gut doesn't let me buy that either. Look at Camden Yards/Jacobs Field/etc. Maybe it's a patchwork, plastic surgery approach to fixing aging cities, but the human traffic that is drawn to an under-developed area just feels revitalizing. Head down to the MCI Center one night this winter--a big question mark when the Wizards first built it--and the buzzing crowds will prove the point. Or I'll just let Abe Pollin and the gang tell me instead.

DC Baseball - Bah Humbug!

"Our conclusion, and that of nearly all academic economists studying this issue, is that professional sports generally have little, if any , positive effect on a city's economy."

Such was the finding of the folks at Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, not a place known to poo-poo fun. And how about a left of center take?

"First, sports teams and facilities are not a source of local economic growth and employment; second, the magnitude of the net subsidy exceeds the financial benefit of a new stadium to a team; and, third, the most plausible reasons that cities are willing to subsidize sports teams are the intense popularity of sports among a substantial proportion of voters and businesses and the leverage that teams enjoy from the monopoly position of professional sports leagues."

The third point is what I wish all those God-awful annoying sports fans would just fess up and stop pretending that the subsidization of their pasttimes will benefit us all. If a business can't make it without government subsidies, something is wrong with the business. At best, all a professional sports team might provide is some abstract feeling of pride. It doesn't improve public schools and it doesn't prevent murder.

E, I'm going to take a knee on your interesting read on autism, etc (though direct you to an entertaining book a couple of my friends have read) simply because today was a huge day for the District.

In order...


*DC baseball likely back on.
And to think of the hours spent scouring for black market Nationals t-shirts.

*The Washington Post bought Slate.
Howard Kurtz thinks it's a Capitol Idea for both organizations.

*Incompetent criminals foil DC's finest.
...got nothing.

Any thoughts on these varied events, all with important ramifications for Washingtonians?

Perles of ignorance

Never a good sign when 'The Prince of Darkness' is trotting out to face the media hordes as your chief defender.


Old white evil dudes gotta stick together.

I did love that Steve Inskeep, the mild-mannered co-host on Morning Edition, kind of got into it with Richard Perle today. From the show:

Inskeep: Why do you suppose that so many prominent Republicans--Trent Lott, John McCain, Chuck Hagel come to mind--have suggested that Rumsfeld should be replaced?
Perle: I don't think three senators is so many prominent Republicans
-cross-talk-
Inskeep: Susan Collins...
Perle: There are many other Republican senators who support him...
Inskeep: William Kristol, the editor of the Weekly Standard. It's not an enormous list, but it's a list.
Perle: It's a list, but it's a small enough list so that he doesn't need to be concerned about it and the President isn't concerned about it.

Perle goes on to blame the Clinton-era leadership for building an army to fight Cold War challenges, not face multiple micro-conflicts around the globe today (he also tries to co-opt Rumsfeld's damning line about the "military you have" into something a little more palatable).

Come on! Yeah, that might have been true a decade ago...but as detailed in many books (take Halberstam's War in a Time of Peace) Bush I and Clinton oversaw gigantic strides in technology that enabled our military to operate remote air wars and minimize human casualties. It's only when you attempt an invasive land war, without proper backing or occupation plan, that you run aground. And here's where I worry that Rumsfeld is just taking the fall for now; there's still no realistic exit plan, no long-term view for what Iraq should become...and the daily reports of horrific casualties, today as bad as any. The Vietnam for our generation.

I'm not Santa (nor Nostradamus), but it's safe to say that the vultures are circling. After the election? Well, as you referenced, the Iraqi political process seems like a pretty dicey propositon these days--his death watch may be lucky to go that long.

If It's Not Broke, Don't Fix It.

This is what baffles me about psychology and psychiatry: how do you determine when someone is mentally "ill" unless you define what is not ill or "normal"?

Aside from easy cases like amnesia or Parkinsons, defining normal seems more about politics, about a dominant group enforcing conformity for no good reason. Until 1973, the American Psychological Association considered homosexuality a disorder. "Gender identity disorder" (which would include transgendered people) is still listed in the APA manual as a sexual deviation. The messiness of determining disorder is what led to an anti-psychiatry movement whose prominent supporters include Thomas Szasz.

Perhaps another disorder included more because of politics than science is autism. No doubt the brain of autistic individuals is different from those who do not have autism. But whether that difference should be called a disease is another issue. Aspies have the incredible ability to retain detail and often develop a particular area of expertise in a subject (like the guy in Rainman). On the other hand, they also have many "anti-social" mannerisms like a repulsion to touch, violent outbursts and repetitive rocking.

The New York Times has a great article today on the debate over autism.

Man on the Rum

I started my morning with this image from the frontpage of the Los Angeles Times.





The man cowering on the floor was one of 3 Iraqi election workers dragged from their car on Sunday in the streets of Baghdad. They were all executed in open daylight. The most poignant moment captured in this article is this man's comment:



"Why did you leave the house?" one anguished man cried over the body of his brother. "You are newlywed and your bride is waiting for you."

In many parts of Iraq, leaving your home is a risk. A recent count by a British medical journal report estimates the Iraqi civilian death toll at around 98,000.

So on the subject of the change in Bush's administration: why the hell is Rumsfeld going to stay on?

Even conservatives have questioned the president's choice. Senator John McCain who was a strong supporter of the war has said he has "no confidence" in Bush's defense secretary. William Kristol, a staunch neo-conservative and editor of the Weekly Standard, described Rumsfeld's consistent pattern of passing blame for the failures in Iraq and said that our troops deserve better.

Incidentally, the Weekly Standard is holding a poll entitled, "Rumsfeld: The Secretary You Have, or The Secretary You Always Wished For?"

Please, Santa, please say he'll be gone after the Iraqi election.

Punting

So I have been woefully nonresponsive. My apologies, Mr. D, but I'm afraid that exams will continue to swallow me. So a conversation must wait until next weekend.

In the meantime, I'll refer to the heady chunk of intellectualism just added to the blogging world from Nobel prize winning economist Gary Becker and 7th Circuit Court judge, Richard Posner.