Streetwise Professor

To put it in Navspeak, the egregious Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger has really screwed the pooch.  In testimony before a Parliamentary committee he admitted that (a) documents sent out of the country had names of British intelligence personnel on them, (b) he couldn’t be bothered to vet all the documents to ensure no names of intelligence agents were included in what he shipped out of the UK (to the NYT, specifically), and (c) paid Greenwald’s partner Miranda to mule the documents out of the UK (in stark contrast to his previous denials that the Guardian had paid Miranda).  Blogger Louise Mensch covered the hearing in detail.

This is a big deal because it is a crime in Britain to transport the names of UK intel personnel out of the country.  Even if it wasn’t a crime, it would be a very grave matter because it would put lives at risk, and would jeopardize British national security.  Not to mention the national security of UK allies, including the US, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia.

His defense? That release of the Snowden material is self-evidently in the public interest, and that there is no evidence that UK intel people had been put at risk.

In other words, Alan Rusbridger, elected by nobody, and who claims he should not be accountable to anybody, and especially not to the British government or law enforcement, has appointed himself the final arbiter of what is in the public interest.  What’s more, he claims to be able to know how people operating in the very clandestine world of intelligence cannot possibly be threatened by disclosure of their names.  (I would note that even if individual agents do not come to harm, their disclosure can lead to the harm of those they have interacted with, or the undermining of operations that would have otherwise reduced the risk of actions that could harm UK national security, or the lives of innocent individuals.)  (As Mensch notes, moreover, any individual whose name was leaked has suffered a severe career setback, as they are essentially undeployable in a covert role: something the Guardian understood when it came to Valerie Plame.)

And then there are the suck-ups who work for Mr. Rusbridge.  Luke Harding (@lukeharding1968) is a very special case. Bravura performance? Get a room, please.

Harding is a special case because he co-authored a book on Wikileaks in which he-wait for it-blasted Assange for not redacting the names of individuals named in the State Department cables stolen by Manning and released-via the Guardian-to the world.  So let me get this straight, Luke:  Assange was treacherous, but Alan I Couldn’t Be Bothered to Redact Names Because There Were Just So Many Bleeding Documents Rusbridge is a hero bravely defending liberty and a free press before Parliament.  Have I got that right?  What is it?  That was then, this is now?  Or, is it that Assange screwed the Guardian, so you had to find a club to beat him with, but wouldn’t dare turn the same club upon yourselves?  I guess I don’t qualify as a first rate intelligence by the F. Scott Fitzgerald definition, because I am having a really hard time of holding two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retaining the ability to function.  And believe me, your criticism of Assange and your defense of Rusbridge are about as totally opposed as ideas can get.

Harding is also a special case because he wrote a book about his experiences in Russia that was very critical of the Putin regime and the FSB in particular.  Yet he is mute on the subject of Snowden’s flight to Russia and control by the FSB, even though any sentient being without an axe to grind realizes that the greatest beneficiary of Snowden is Putin and the FSB that Harding claims to despise.

Luke Harding is the exemplar of a form of transitivity that characterizes the Guardian.  Yes, it often writes things that are very critical of Russia and Putin.  But its dislike of Russia pales in comparison with its hatred of the US and the UK government-at least the defense and intelligence establishments thereof.  So when it becomes an issue of the US vs. Russia-as is the case with Snowden-all criticism and even questioning of Russia is silenced, and screeching about the US and UK government reaches a deafening pitch.  In the Snowden matter, Ed’s complicity with and aiding and abetting of the FSB is never mentioned: indeed, anyone who suggests it is slimed as an NSA/GCHQ lackey.  When the FSB follows Harding, or breaks into his apartment, now that’s important.  That deserves a book!  But when the Guardian’s pet project provides incredible aid and comfort to that very same FSB, nary a word is spoken.  FSB?  What FSB?  This is all about NSA and GCHQ.  Snowden is a crusader for freedom, even though he is a tool in the hands of a regime that is inimical to freedom.  Following the party line.  Jot and tittle.

So when push comes to shove, when there is a choice to be made, the Guardian-and Luke Harding-make it plain where their real sympathies lie. They deserve no respect and no credibility.  And at least some-notably Alan Rusbridger-deserve the tender mercies of the law, with all the protections and procedures it affords him in the UK.  If it were Russia, not so much.

In his latest, desperate attempt to change the subject from Obombacare, BHO is following in the slipstream of another economic ignoramus, the Pope, and pushing for an increase in the minimum wage.  He evidently believes demand curves slope up, because he claims, via Twitter, that a 40 percent rise in the minimum wage will increase employment by 140K and increase GDP by $32.6 billion.  Not $32 billion.  Not $33 billion.  $32.6 billion.  That’s right, a forced rise in the wages of some individuals will somehow magically result in a rise in employment overall, and an increase in economic activity.

Just how that would work is a mystery.  My guess is that they are multiplying the rise in wages to those currently paid less than the new minimum wage of $10.10 times the number of hours worked (assuming no decline in that figure-which is bogus) times some magical Keynesian multiplier times some jobs/GDP ratio to get the 140K jobs and the $32.6 billion GDP increases.  The multiplier step would come from (presumably) the higher earnings translating into higher spending which raises the income of others who spend more and on and on.

But as Steve Landsburg rightly points out, when criticizing someone who should know better, even overlooking the highly unlikely assumption that the higher wage does not reduce employment, the higher income of those earning the higher minimum wage is a transfer from those who pay it.  So even if you believe in magical Keynesian multipliers, there’s nothing to multiply.  The income of some goes up, the income of others goes down by the same amount, so even if the consumption of some goes up the consumption of others goes down by approximately the same amount.  Meaning the Keynesian spiral (if you believe in such things) never gets started.

In other words, if this sounds like an economic perpetual motion machine, you’re right.

But maybe it would make sense if explained by an articulate spokesman.  You know, like this:

In his heroic efforts to alert Americans to the NSA’s threats to their civil liberties, Edward Snowden’s latest document release reveals that NSA colluded with Sweden to spy on Americans.

Wait.  Did I say Americans?  Sorry.  Got all wrapped up in the narrative.

Let me start over.  Edward Snowden’s latest document release reveals that the NSA and its counterpart the Swedish National Defense Radio Establishment  (“RFA”) cooperated to collect intelligence on Russia, including high priority targets such as the leadership.

A couple of comments.

First, I sure as hell hope so and am damned glad.

Second, um, isn’t the whole point of the NSA-and presumably RFA-to collect intelligence on foreign nations, especially those who are not just potential adversaries, but actual ones?  Hell, NSA’s primary reason for being for  decades was to collect intelligence of all varieties on the USSR.  The anti-terrorist mission which Poitras, Greenwald, etc., insinuate is the only legitimate basis for its current existence was pretty much an afterthought, and is still only a portion of what NSA does.  (IMO the NSA and the intelligence community in general have been mistaken in emphasizing its anti-terror role as a justification for its programs.  This has allowed the Snowden gang to raise doubts about the legitimacy of NSA’s non-terror-related activities, including collecting intelligence on foreign leaders and countries.  NSA should defend these activities.)

Third, this is a case where the US and Sweden have common interests, as is the case with the US and many of the other countries with whom it has cooperated, as revealed by previous Snowden disclosures.

Indeed, Sweden has long been, and continues to be, the subject of aggressive Russian intelligence and military operations.  These include Soviet submarine incursions into Swedish waters. (The lack of these episodes post-Soviet collapse are due more to the implosion of the Russian submarine force than any change in intent.)  They also include violations of Swedish airspace, including several recent simulated bombing runs on Sweden.

Given this history, cooperation between NSA and FRA is about as shocking, and about as alarming, as the cooperation between the FBI and local law enforcement on kidnapping and bank robbery.

As a near front-line state, with deep engagements and interests in eastern Europe and the Baltic, Sweden has no illusions about the threats posed by Russia.  Military. Economic. Criminal. (In Russia, these two are hard to distinguish.)  And yes, political.  Note that Sweden’s Karl Bildt has been among the most outspoken in criticizing Russia’s intimidation in Ukraine.  (Could he give John Kerry a blood transfusion?  He could use it. First the French, and now the Swedesare making Kerry and Obama look feckless and craven.  Read that sentence again to get the full significance of how embarrassing that is.)

The fact that Snowden, Poitras, Greenwald et al think that this revelation somehow reveals that the US is engaged in illegitimate acts tells you about their utterly unrealistic view of the justifiable activities of national intelligence authorities.  States have engaged in such activities since time immemorial.  They are an essential state function.  This revelation also shows that they believe that cooperation with the United States is inherently disreputable.  Because they believe like most hardcore leftists that the US is uniquely malign.  The criticism of those who cooperate with the US, and the elevation of the Russians-the Russians-to the status of victims tells you need to know all about whom they think are the bad actors.

The point is to put pressure on the US, and most notably, US allies, who cooperate out of self-interest with US intelligence agencies.  It has nothing to do with the privacy or civil liberties of the nations involved-the ostensible justification for Snowden’s theft-and everything to do with compromising the legitimate activities of free, democratic countries.

And who are the beneficiaries? Unfree, undemocratic ones.  Most notably Russia.  You know, the country to which Snowden fled, and which has given him asylum, obviously under the control of its security services, as self-righteously-and implausibly-as Snowden, Greenwald et al try to deny it.

Russia. The country of SORM.  Which those stalwart defenders of human liberty and privacy Snowden, Greenwald, Poitras, et al never mention ever.

What they reveal and what they refuse to discuss proves, day after day, that they are all objectively pro-Russian, and outrageous hypocrites to boot.  And sorry, but advancing Russian interests at the expense of American and Swedish (and German and British and Portuguese and French and Spanish and . . .) interests is utterly incompatible with a claimed purpose of fighting for liberty and privacy.  Because however imperfect these countries may be, on their worst day they are far superior to Russia on its best.

I am somewhat used to getting material from SWP ripped off.  The Economist did it a couple of times early on in the history of this blog, and other less eminent writers/bloggers have done it subsequently.  But seldom have I seen such a total expropriation-of Russian Yukos-like proportions-as this piece by Jennifer Rubin at the WaPo.  The title and main metaphor of the piece.  The substance of the analysis.  Blatant and shameless.

I give away what I write here.  (Some may say that’s a fair price.)  I am more than pleased when people quote what I write.  Indeed, that’s the primary compensation for the time and effort that I devote: I write so that my ideas, such as they are, get discussed and disseminated and yes, criticized.  The ethical expectation is that credit be given.  It doesn’t cost a thing.  Except, perhaps, for those who are so insecure and desperate to be thought of as creative and perhaps under pressure to produce new content day after day that they take from others without attribution.

There’s a right way to do this.  Felix Salmon and I have had disagreements, in public via our respective blogs.  But he gives a respectful hearing to what I say, attributes it plainly (with links), and characterizes it fairly.  John Kemp (also of Reuters) is another example.

And then there’s the Jennifer Rubin way.

According to sources quoted by the WaPo, that is.  That’s appalling.

Not that the administration is telling us.  Indeed, it’s blaming you, silly website user person.  You had the termity to hit the back button when the f*cking website didn’t respond the way you’d expected, you know, like the way www.amazon.com or even freaking www.pets.com perform.

No, they’re telling us the website is feeling better! It doesn’t want to go on the cart!

Oh, if only we had one boon worker with a truncheon to put it out if its misery. And put us out of the misery it’s inflicted on us.

The administration is declaring victory in the battle to fix Healtcare.gov.  I declare BS.

Note the metric of success: the administration claims 100K people have “selected plans.”  Never mind that this is 1/8th of the target by 12/1.  The question, framed in futures-speak, is: How many out-trades?

An out-trade is where a buy is not matched by a sell.  Since the backend that communicates information from users to insurers isn’t fixed-and some parts aren’t even built yet-and since there are also bottlenecks in communications between the government and insurers and users regarding eligibility for and amount of subsidies, the number of actual matched buys-and-sells is a fraction of the 100K.  How big a fraction?  Don’t look to the administration for answers.

No, don’t look to them, because they are in full obfuscation mode.  They are engaging in a Potemkin Village strategy.  They are pointing to the newly spruced up facade of the Healthcare.gov system-the user interface, which is now less crappy than it used to be (a very low standard, indeed)-and saying: “See! Look! It is fixed!  Isn’t it beautiful?  The procession can now move on!”  The hidden message: “Pay no attention to the fact that behind the somewhat improved facade, your personal information necessary actually to match you with an insurer so you can actually buy the policy may well be screwed up, or not get to the insurer, or just disappear into the ether.”

Out-trades are messy, costly, and risky: the biggest problem is that you don’t know your risk position because you don’t know whether you have a trade or not.

It is reasonable to surmise, based on what insurers are saying, that the number of out-trades is substantial, and is only likely to increase both absolutely but also as a fraction of applications, as more traffic moves to the site.

The web interface is not the deal.  That is just the facade of PotemkinVillage.gov.  Behind it is nothing, or ramshackle construction.  Sort of like this village in Siberia that adopted the Potemkin strategy in anticipation of a visit by Putin.

And that’s not the worst of it.  Behind that, assuming everything gets working, is a set of horrid, expensive policies.