perfidy

No kidding? Really?

But not for the reasons that immediately pop to mind.

Seeing as no one was killed in this car bomb attack on the Baghdad headquarters of the UN, I can be facetious and say that it looks like the Iraqis have figured out who their real enemy is.

Ralph Luker at History News Network has posted a notice about the most recent data on incarceration rates in the US.

Currently, .686% of our adult population is in prison. It doesn't get higher than that in any other country in the world: not Russia, not Cuba, not Burma, not Saudi Arabia. It gets higher than that only in some states within the United States. Louisiana and Texas lead the pack with 1.013% and .966% of their adult populations in prison.

If harsh sentencing for nonviolent, drug-related offenses is a major cause of the high rates of incarceration, the rippling effects are substantial. They exaggerate father-absenteeism. They disfranchise citizens in many states. Our prisons become colleges in the culture of crime.

"Colleges for the culture of crime." Well put. In short, harsh sentencing for minor offenses leads to the creation of a permanent ostensibly criminal underclass.

Luker is careful to note that this data "is not self-interpreting", which is nice, but he raises a very important point which the data nevertheless suggest. It's long been known that US prisons have a culture and social organization all their own, and said culture is even romanticized, though sometimes at arms' length (see Johnny Cash's prison recordings, the HBO series OZ, about a million films). But despite the cuteness and redemptive power of films like "Out of Sight" and "Shawshank Redemption," I'm willing to bet that most prison terms don't come with a helping of folksy wisdom or Jennifer Lopez' ass. Imprisoning people for long periods for minor drug offenses does far more harm than good to the fabric of American society by facilitating the growth of the aforementioned permanent, disenfranchised, officially/ostensibly criminal underclass. As that group's numbers swell, so do the negative effects to the "felons" themselves, their families, communities, and the nation as a whole.

Two points ensue: One-- Is it better to have a small-time pot dealer in jail for two weeks and fined $5000, or to have that small-time pot dealer in prison for five years during which time he cannot raise his kids or provide for his family, and where he makes new contacts within the world of professional and recidivist crime?

Second, how does it help that, once he gets out, he is now a "convicted felon" and less able to get a decent job, is ineligible for federal financial aid to go to college, and may not vote in many places? For all the crying about how families in America are broken (usually "inner city families," which is of course an ostensibly polite word for "black"), and about how society is going to hell in a handbasket because strong community and family leaders are absent, isn't it possible that the "breakdown of the family" is partially due to the fact that, for example, a third of "inner city" men will spend some time in prison, and therefore will find the obstacles to college, a career, and prosperity (y'know, old style American by-the-bootstraps self-improvement) that much more insurmountable?

And this certainly isn't just an "inner city" problem-- I know of small-town briar-hoppers where I'm from who periodically attend "going away" parties for friends and family because the Feds found their stash. Good people, smart people, people deeply in debt, done for good. The economic disadvantages already arrayed against them merely become more acute while they spend time in prison, resulting in the possibility of more future drug dealing, and ensuring that they remain marginal economic, social, and political players.

There's plenty of counterarguments to this. You might argue that "you do the crime, you do the time," which begs the question of fairness in sentencing. Why does possession of a recreational plant extract have sentencing parity with murder in some places? You also might argue that the War on Drugs, which puts so many in prison, is more important than individuals who may be inconvenienced in the process. Really? So keeping me from eating a pot brownie is more important than heading off the formation of a permanent poor officially-designated criminal underclass?

Which brings me to a corollary. The definition of "felony" is far too loose today. For all the carping about the misuse of the word "treason," the extension of "felony" to cover an array of nonviolent, noncapital offenses is far more troubling. Many states don't allow felons to vote ever again, such laws being passed back when a contract killing, rather than possession of a pot plant, was a felony. Disenfranchising pot dealers is not what the framers of such laws had in mind, and it certainly offends me, the final arbiter of taste and decency. (The disenfranchisement of felons was already a problem in Florida in 2000, and I expect it will be the Next Big Thing in election-year controversies.)

Not that I think this kind of thing will change any time soon, but I wish it would. Not that I know a damn thing about the law or sentencing. But some things just seem so wrenchingly paradoxical, so against common sense, that the perfidous mind just boggles.

Michael Ledeen of the National Review has a good one up on the Iranian situation.

The behavior of our State Department has been suspect for the duration of the War on Terror. Deputy Assistant Undersecretaries, lackies, underlings and minions have consistently undermined the effort to fight, or even to mildly castigate terrorists and the state sponsors thereof.

That these ... individuals... would leak these stories in an effort to deter communication with the very people who are resisting the monstrous Iranian government so that careerist State department employees can continue their dialog with the leaders of the "Iranian Democracy" is abhorrent. We need a State Department that supports the war on terror, and moreover is capable of discriminating between a democracy and a fundamentalist islamic totalitarian state.

While President Bush has been relatively outspoken in support for the people of Iran, the rest of the government needs to get on board. As I have said here before, you can predict how much the people of a dictatorial country like America by how we deal with that country's leadership. Standing on principle has real, pragmatic benefits.

On a related note, Trent Telenko had an article. a little while back on what he perceives as the beginning of a campaign against Saudi Arabia. As it happens I agree, not to suck up to much. I've talked about this before, though not with quite the depth on SA that Trent gets into.

We at the Ministry celebrate a milestone. Today The Ministry of Minor Perfidy came as close as it ever has to the bright burning sun at the core of the blogosphere. Well, the bright burning sun on the right, anyway. And a highly contentious sun at that.

But nevertheless!

This Instapundit post references this Begging to Differ post as well as Doktor Frank, both of whom refer to this nugget of wisdom from Minister Pythagosaurus. The Ministry recognizes the fame, importance and temporary usefulness of the one known as "Glenn Reynolds" and is pleased that we shall taste a small measure of the renown which he so fleetingly enjoys.

We would be remiss in not mentioning our first Icarus-like encounter with blogging greatness. Last week, the estimable USS Clueless linked Minister Buckethead's insight into the Fascist future of Europe; and increased our traffic by nearly three orders of magnitude.

The Ministry is pleased that these individuals have had the perspicacity and good character to recognize our inherent greatness.

The blood, sweat, toil and tears of millions of pixies, sprites, gnomes and off shore contract workers has not gone unrewarded! The Ministry shall not be deterred from its glorious future!! Someday the awe and wonder of the teeming millions shall be the coin of tribute by which the Ministry fills its coffers.

Onward!

I am late in noticing this hilarious parody accurate description post on balloon juice. Go read it, I beg you.

Science!

James M. Pethokoukis writes about nanotechnology in US News and World Report, and raises some interesting issues. More discussion when real-life matters like laundry, groceries, and sleep are not so pressing.

Read it! 
 

The Democrats, boy do they have their fingers on the hot-button issues!

They're like a man who orders a steak, is served a plateful of shit, and complains that his parsley is missing.

[This in the wake of lengthy political discussions and "strategery sessions" with the Ebullient German And His Wife, The Equally Ebullient Ohioan in various brew pubs in southern Vermont and Western Massachusetts over the weekend.]

One further, less pithy, observation. Vermont is a very poor state, sort of the Arkansas of the northeast. Howard Dean seems very proud of his ability to run said state, and certainly deserves credit for balancing the budget and adroitly meeting the needs of mountain men and hippies alike. Yet prosperity is not evident, at least not in the southern part of the state. Huh. The Arkansas of the North. A left-field Democratic candidate whose persona is as big a selling point as his proposals. Huh.

[update] n.b. I am a big fan of the Green Mountain State and would happily live there if I had a reason. However, an informal survey reveals that the CB-FY Ratio (ratio of cars on blocks to front yards) is in the range of 2.3.

A CB-FY ratio less than .5 is well known to be an accurate leading indicator of the near-future prosperity of a population. A CB-FY Ratio above 1.5, likewise, suggests a lack of robust economic growth.

Moreover, the NWA-FY (Non-working appliance to front yard) Ratio in southern Vermont is a dizzyingly high 3.15-- also a leading indicator of continued economic moribundity. I'm just sayin'.

I just recently finished Tom Clancy's new book, Teeth of the Tiger. I was disappointed on many levels. Over most of the last two decades, I have eagerly awaited the next Clancy book. I got suckered on the Op-Center, thing, but once I ruled those out, it was largely a happy process of buy book, read book, happy thoughts. I have read all of his novels, and all of his non-fiction as well. (The non-fiction books are very well done, and remarkable compendiums of military information that you would otherwise have to glean from hundreds of sources.)

Bear and Dragon was the last Clacy novel that I liked unreservedly. Or nearly - the battle sequence was a little too one sided for dramatic purposes, though in all honesty that's probably how it work*. Red Rabbit was interesting, but almost sterile in its lack of action and intrigue. It read more like a report on a book than the book itself. Teeth plots another point on that downward trend.

Without getting into spoilers, the basic idea of the novel is that there is a completely secret, extra-governmental and extra legal covert operations agency that has the mission of killing those who would plan, fund or execute terrorist operations against Americans.

I have several key ojections to the book:

1) The main characters are Jack Ryan's son and twin nephews. Aside from these three, I was never able to distinguish any of the other characters on the "Good Guy" side. The bad guys were nearly as bland. I actually wrote my own dramatis personae just so I could keep track of these two dimensional characters.

2) There is almost no dramatic tension in this book. There are two story arcs that intersect only in perfect hits on terrorists. The terrorists never know what's happening. Through intelligence siphoned off the NSA and CIA, this agency flawlessly tracks, identifies, and kills terrorists. It's like reading about someone who has mastered a videogame describe how effectively he can clear the first level of the game.

3) There is very little real discussion about the morality of the mission they have undertaken. One of the nephews has doubts, but they are resolved in an improbable coincidence. The characters blithely go about killing whomever they are ordered to kill. Now, for all that I have liked Tom Clancy in the past, I know that moral philosophy is not exactly what you expect in a Clancy novel. Nevertheless, in prior novels good guys are clearly working for good - both ends and means, and have little need for moral justification. And more than many authors, Clancy is at pains to give his bad guys a convincing moral dimension. Your average Clancy villain either sees himself as a good guy (good psych, there) or has compelling history that motivates him to do what he otherwise would not. This book is lacking on both sides of the game.

4) And finally, the book ends about halfway through the story.

Wait for the omnibus paperback edition. I hope that Clany has not just gotten lazy, though this book has all the earmarks of just that.

* America against any other armed force in the world presents major dramatic problems. It is manifest that we can kick anyone's ass. How do you give Superman a convincing opponent? The media suffers through this every time we go up against someone, though they are hard pressed to maintain the tension. There are only two ways to do it, though - one is to come up with a scenario that convincingly limits the amount of force that the Americans will bring to bear, and the other is to vastly inflate the competance of the opposing force.

Over at the USS Clueless, Steven den Beste has engaged in typical logorrhea and produced a masterpiece of technical analysis. He details everything that is wrong with the current system, and what must be done to fix it.

He is, of course, missing the point. The correct solution is to put hamsters on treadmills. Mind you, I am aware of the immense breeding project that would have to be undertaken, as well as the cost of creating millions of advanced treadmill generators. But the benefits are enormous. Power generation will become a decentralized, robust network. Power generation will be entertaining. And, in emergencies, hamsters taste like chicken.