Fifty years on

Fifty years ago this month, many of us wondered if we were on the brink of nuclear Armageddon as the Kennedy Administration confronted the Soviet Union over the latter’s stationing of nuclear missiles in Cuba. The way JFK and his colleagues handled the crisis is probably the most studied case-study in crisis management in history — see, for example, The Kennedy Tapes: Inside the White House During the Cuban Missile Crisis, but it’s still fascinating.

To mark the anniversary, the JFK Memorial Library has put together a remarkable web production which not only contains an excellent narrative of the evolution and resolution of the crisis, but also a riveting portfolio of documents, photographs, movies and audio recordings of the secret deliberations of Kennedy and his advisers. It takes time to absorb, but it’s worth it. And it’s a brilliant illustration of what the Web can do if used imaginatively.

Why we vote for liars

Nice, sharp column by Jack Shafer.

Say what you will about Ralph Nader and H. Ross Perot, but they ran relatively honest campaigns on the issues, and the voters rejected them. The political market spoke many years ago and continues to speak: Telling the truth is not great for campaigns – and if it were, more people would be doing it.

The one presidential candidate in recent memory to win the White House posing as a truth teller was Jimmy Carter, who famously promised early in his campaign: “I’ll never tell a lie” and “I’ll never knowingly make a misstatement of fact” as president. These promises drew instant fire from the press, most notably Steven Brill, who flayed him in a March 1976 Harper’s piece titled “Jimmy Carter’s Pathetic Lies” (subscription required). Carter, who told no fewer lies than the average candidate, paid a political price for his promise, as everyone turned up their radar. “By saying that he would never tell a lie, Carter decided for himself that that’s going to be his standard,” said Alan Baron, George McGovern’s press secretary. “Well, fine, let’s hold him to it.” As soon as they could, voters replaced the non-lying liar with Ronald Reagan, a man so smooth even he didn’t know when he was lying.

Biofuel: feeds cars, starves people

Interesting paper by a trio of complexity theorists about the near-term implications of the US drought. Abstract reads:

Recent droughts in the midwestern United States threaten to cause global catastrophe driven by a speculator amplified food price bubble. Here we show the effect of speculators on food prices using a validated quantitative model that accurately describes historical food prices. During the last six years, high and fluctuating food prices have lead to widespread hunger and social unrest. While a relative dip in food prices occurred during the spring of 2012, a massive drought in the American Midwest in June and July threatens to trigger another crisis. In a previous paper, we constructed a model that quantitatively agreed with food prices and demonstrated that, while the behavior could not be explained by supply and demand economics, it could be parsimoniously and accurately described by a model which included both the conversion of corn into ethanol and speculator trend following. An update to the original paper in February 2012 demonstrated that the model previously published was predictive of the ongoing price dynamics, and anticipated a new food crisis by the end of 2012 if adequate policy actions were not implemented. Here we provide a second update, evaluating the effects of the current drought on global food prices. We find that the drought may trigger the expected third food price bubble to occur sooner, before new limits to speculation are scheduled to take effect. Reducing the amount of corn that is being converted to ethanol may address the immediate crisis. Over the longer term, market stabilization requires limiting financial speculation.

In the battle for military resources, the Taliban are a useful ally

Terrific Guardian column by Simon Jenkins. Excerpt:

The one straw at which ministers and generals will grasp is that as long as the war lasts, it helps them lobby for money. Ever since Nato lost its reason for existing, its task has been to find a purpose. It has dragged out the insane Afghan conflict for 11 years. Why stop now? In the one battle that matters to a modern army – the battle for resources – the Taliban is not an enemy but an ally.

What do officials say nowadays to the relatives of the 433 British and 2,000 American who have died fighting in Afghanistan. Do they say they have avenged the dead of 9/11, taught the Taliban a lesson, “sent a message” to militant Islam, helped rebuild a poor country? They cannot surely be repeating Gordon Brown’s line, that their deaths are making Britain’s streets safer. London now has to be patrolled by armed policemen, and a billion pounds spent protecting the Olympics.

The truth is that British troops are dying in Afghanistan because no British government has the guts to admit they are there to no purpose. Military lobbyists shelter behind the “bravery of our boys” to sustain defence spending. No party dares question the war or its objective, for fear of demeaning heroism. The war is not mentioned at party conferences. Money is poured into drone bombing, despite its manifest counter-productivity. The coalition claims to be “training” a 350,000-strong local army and police force, but knows them to be unreliable, a new Taliban in the making.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

This morning’s Observer column.

The first thought to strike anyone stumbling upon the now-infamous Innocence of Muslims video on YouTube without knowing anything about it would probably be that it makes Monty Python’s The Life of Brian look like the work of Merchant Ivory. It’s daft, amateurish beyond belief and, well, totally weird. So the notion that such a fatuous production might provoke carnage in distant parts of the world seems preposterous.

And yet it did. In the process, the video created numerous headaches for a US administration struggling to deal with the most turbulent part of the world. But it also raised some tricky questions about the role that commercial companies play in regulating free speech in a networked world – questions that will remain long after Innocence of Muslims has been forgotten…

Afghanistan, noun: Quagmire

I’ve been ranting on for a while (see here and here, for example) against the cant being talked by our politicians about Western involvement in Afghanistan. I cannot fathom why any sentient being could believe what they are telling us about what’s happening on that North West Frontier. The New Yorker‘s Dexter Filkin has been exceedingly perceptive about this for as long as I can remember. His latest piece continues that honourable tradition.

We can’t win the war in Afghanistan, so what do we do? We’ll train the Afghans to do it for us, then claim victory and head for the exits.

But what happens if we can’t train the Afghans?

We’re about to find out. It’s difficult to overstate just how calamitous the decision, announced Tuesday, to suspend most joint combat patrols between Afghan soldiers and their American and NATO mentors is. Preparing the Afghan Army and police to fight without us is the foundation of the Obama Administration’s strategy to withdraw most American forces—and have them stop fighting entirely—by the end of 2014. It’s our ticket home. As I outlined in a piece earlier this year, President Obama’s strategy amounts to an enormous gamble, and one that hasn’t, so far, shown a lot of promise. That makes this latest move all the more disastrous. We’re running out of time.

Nope. We have run out of time. But even if we had a century it wouldn’t have worked.

Mitt Romney’s father received state aid

Well, well. This from the Boston Globe.

Mitt Romney had harsh words for welfare recipients in a hidden-camera videotape from a May fundraiser that was leaked this week.

But his own father was once among public aid recipients.

As the Globe has previously reported, George Romney’s family fled from Mexico in 1912 to escape a revolution there, and benefited from a $100,000 fund established by Congress to help refugees who had lost their homes and most of their belongings.

That fund may have been what Lenore Romney, George Romney’s wife and Mitt Romney’s mother, was referring to in a video that was posted online earlier this month but has received renewed attention in the wake of Mitt Romney’s comments.

“[George Romney] was on welfare relief for the first years of his life. But this great country gave him opportunities,” Lenore Romney said in the video, which apparently dates back to George Romney’s 1962 run for governor of Michigan.

Josiah Bounderby rides again

Lovely New Yorker piece by John Cassidy about Mittster. Excerpt:

Say what you like about Mitt Romney—I’ve already said a lot—but he rarely fails to come through when his opponents need him. If Jimmy Carter’s grandson, the would-be opposition researcher who evidently helped to dig up the offending video, had written the script himself he could hardly have come up with something more damaging than the videos secretly taped at a Boca Raton fundraiser this spring and published by Mother Jones on Monday. What sort of candidate, speaking in a quasi-public setting—there are potential leakers lurking in all fundraisers—would say almost half of the voters in the election “are dependent on the government,” that they “believe that they are victims,” and then go on to say, “my job is not to worry about these people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives”?

The answer proffered by my colleague Amy Davidson and numerous other commentators: a heartless plutocrat who holds the impoverished and the working poor in contempt. Sounding for all the world like Josiah Bounderby, the sneering mill owner in Dickens’s “Hard Times,” Romney went on to say, “I have inherited nothing. Everything that Ann and I have, we earned the old-fashioned way.” Bounderby, it turned out, had exaggerated his humble origins, and so, of course, has Romney—not that anybody could possibly believe him. When your father was the C.E.O. of a big auto company and the governor of Michigan, and you were educated at the three-hundred-acre campus of the Cranbrook School, posing as Horatio Alger is plain silly.

But, then, Romney is a profoundly silly candidate.