to see Robert Rubin’s name in a piece like this.
Category: Policy Page 16 of 35
A thoughtful column from Cenk Ungyar that jumps off from this Newsweek graf:
As NEWSWEEK reported last summer, President Bush approved more relaxed rules of engagement for U.S. forces along the Afghan-Pakistan border. The Pentagon once required “90 percent” confidence on the part of intelligence agencies that a “high-value target” was present before approving Predator strikes inside Pakistan. Under the revised rules, U.S. officials on the ground now need only 50 to 60 percent confidence to shoot at compounds suspected of sheltering foreign fighters, according to knowledgeable U.S. sources who would speak of sensitive matters only anonymously.
Obama will be responsible for killing people in the next four years, too. Here’s hoping* that he’s a more thoughtful human being about it than Bush.
*For the world’s sake, not his. I suspect that the more thoughtful a human you are about that aspect of the job, the more you will personally suffer for it.
Pakistan’s Army is practising shooting down unmanned drones. You know, like the US military uses. The Danger Room story notes:
The U.S. and Pakistan supposedly have a “don’t ask, don’t tell” agreement when it comes to killer drone strikes on militant camps inside the country: American officials stay mum about the attacks, and their counterparts in Islamabad only complain a little — while sneaking peeks at the drone surveillance feeds.
Here’s hoping that that’s the case. As I have said here – over and over again, I know – I don’t think there’s any role that the US can usefully play in the stabilising of Pakistan. At the same time, I don’t begrudge the US taking very narrowly targeted action in certain cases (e.g., 110% verified, high value, strategic targets taking advantage of Pakistan’s borders). No matter what, however, I think it is essential that the US not be seen as meddling in Pakistan’s internal affairs (which was one of the many reasons I was disappointed with Obama on the subject of Pakistan during the campaign). If it takes a bit of lying on everyone’s part, that’s okay.
Not entirely sure what to think of Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano at DHS, but knowing that she is generally smart on immigration and was instrumental in the effort to knock down the REAL ID Act is encouraging.
~
Glad to know that even the President Elect shouldn’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy with Verizon.
~
A money bet against this not being executed well is probably a safe one.
~
Iceland – a textbook case of the benefits of massive deregulation.
~
More on this later, but in case that turns out to be a lot later, I wanted to highlight this good piece on managing current expectations by rewriting the past. The site, in general, is worth spending some time on.
And Rep. Henry Waxman will be heading up the House Energy and Commerce Committee. This is encouraging in a number of ways. First, we’ll have a person shaping the energy policy debate that isn’t wedded to Detroit. Second, Waxman is not afraid of looking – and moving – into the future. Finally, that Dingell – a longstanding House power – could be displaced bodes well for those of us who think that more than seniority should determine power structure.
(None of this should be taken to say that I don’t think highly of Dingell. Waxman is simply more of what we need in that position, right now.)
TPM highlights an op-ed piece at Defense News, which warns against of a number of bad ideas currently being put into action, not the least of which is:
The uniformed services are trying to lock in the next administration by creating a political cost for holding the line on defense spending. Conservative groups are hoping to ramp up defense spending as a tool to limit options for a Democratic Congress and president to pass new, and potentially costly, social programs, including health care reform.
[ . . . ]
Promoting overspending on defense in order to forestall popular social spending is undemocratic – it creates a false tension between national security and other public policy goals.
The informal alliance between the services and conservative think tanks threatens to further politicize the military. The abuse of national security arguments to win political arguments is both morally suspect and threatens the security of the nation by delinking strategic assessment from public policy.
Dangerous games.
The Washington Post has a press release story about the launch of something called the Future of Privacy Forum:
A group of privacy scholars, lawyers and corporate officials are launching an advocacy group today designed to help shape standards around how companies collect, store and use consumer data for business and advertising.
Well, okay. That’s certainly something that I’d like to see get more attention. But what does this group bring to the discussion that the Center for Democracy & Technology, EPIC, and the EFF don’t already? Oh, here’s the answer:
The group, the Future of Privacy Forum, will be led by Jules Polonetsky, who until this month was in charge of AOL‘s privacy policy, and Chris Wolf, a privacy lawyer for law firm Proskauer Rose [ed. note – and also one of AT&T’s law firms] . They say the organization, which is sponsored by AT&T, aims to develop ways to give consumers more control over how personal information is used for behavioral-targeted advertising.
Because AT&T cares about your privacy.  Also from the press release story:
Mike Zaneis, vice president for public policy for the Interactive Advertising Bureau, which represents online publishers such as Google and Yahoo as well as advertisers such as Verizon, said online privacy issues have long been debated and that “having another voice in this area could help.”
Yup. I think it’s probably a safe bet that we can look forward to this group muddying the waters of most any privacy policy discussion in the near future. That isn’t to say this is an entirely useless voice – it’s expected to generally argue for “opt-in” tracking – but anything they issue should be viewed with the question of how it will benefit AT&T.
Happy 60th Birthday, Chuck. Now get a job and move out of your parents’ house(s), you twit.
~
Speaking of twits and Kings, the King kids are as classy as ever, looking for a piece of the action on t-shirts featuring pictures of Obama and King.
~
How’d you like to be in the position of having to buy a new country? The Maldives, who expect their homeland to be submerged by rising sea levels (thanks, Global Warming!) are testing the market.
~
So, what did eight years of a Bush Administration – which is all about promoting democracy (with a little dash of By Any Means Necessary, remember) – do for Burma, which suffers from one of the most repressive regimes on the planet? Nothing.
Dear Hillary and Al-
I know I am probably just getting suckered by the usual kids in DC, but just in case there is any truth to the rumours that either/both of you may join the Obama Administration – DON’T! I’m not offering this as some snarky reverse psychology gambit. But as a genuine and honest hope for each of you. Hillary, you were in office before Obama, and you’ll be there after he’s gone. We need you for the long haul. Stay in the Senate. Give Harry Reid a reason to look over his shoulder. Al. Don’t dick around with DC. You’re bigger than that, now. Why throw what you’ve got away for the pettiness of this town? Think big.
Thank you,
MB
Once upon a time, I was trying to gauge interest among a group of friends in splitting the cost of a newly-announced Eclipse 500 jet. Turns out that my earnestness was a little optimistic, but I still think that we’re likely to see both the production of a (relatively) affordable Eclipse 500-like jet and the development of an alternative to the big-jet spoke and hub travel system in the US. If this is an area that interests you, author James Fallows is your man. Start with this post at the Atlantic.