Third World America 2011

Forget "Fast Tracking to Anarchy" We've Arrived

by Janet Tavakoli

Bottom line: The country is being destroyed from within. As money grubbing politicians cut deals with cronies, including unions that lobby for minimum wage laws that make it near impossible for many, especially black youth, to find jobs, the youth are now unemployed and roaming. This is another reason Bernanke will keep pumping money. He will want to prop up these local governments, so that they can keep paying some resemblance of a police force. But Bernanke's money printing will only create price inflation, make the gangs more desperate and bold, and on top of it screw anybody that will be down the line in getting newly printed Fed funny money. THE COLLAPSE HAS BEGUN

Last summer I wrote about Arianna Huffington's latest book, Third World America: How Our Politicians are Abandoning the Middle Class and Betraying the American Dream and talked about the Great Recession, the Great Bailout, and the Great Cover-Up of financial crimes.

I also wrote that municipal financial problems spelled a lower quality of life. Downtown Chicago crime escalated, along with attacks on officers in the Chicago Police Department. An officer who spoke up about the low morale of the undermanned and rudderless police force endured official retaliation. ("Third World America: 'Fast Tracking to Anarchy")

This year, all hell has broken loose in downtown Chicago. Years of under-hiring have resulted in a police force that is unprepared for wildings and gang violence. Moreover, concealed carry in Chicago is illegal, unless one follows the Constitution.

Tourists and residents have been attacked by mobs of youths on buses, on beaches, on bicycle paths, near the shops of the Magnificent Mile, and outside their homes. Mobs of shoplifters plagued "Mug Mile" stores. The irony is that these disenfranchised youths are turning to crime -- and if justice is done, prison sentences --a gainst innocent targets. Their focus is misdirected. Participating in a peaceful five million man march -- a true show of force and power -- against elected culprits in Washington would get them better results for lasting change.

The Spring of Anarchy: "A City At War With Itself"

It is still technically spring in Chicago, and wildings have made Chicago and its beaches unsafe. Poorer neighborhoods have long been war zones. The murder rate and gang violence in Chicago has been unacceptable for years.

Yet the police force was gutted, handcuffed, and muzzled. ("In Third World America Expect to be Investigated, as Lt. John Andrews Is Being Investigated, for Speaking Up") Police officers -- some off duty and still in uniform -- have been gunned down in the streets. Their crime-fighting abilities are severely hampered by years of irrational policies and genuflecting to politically power hungry special interest groups.

Of course, we want police officers to follow proper procedures at all times, but we also want them to make fast decisions in violent chaotic circumstances, defend themselves, and get home safely to their families and friends. Local media hounds come out in force against police work. It's time they came out in favor of superior training and hiring.

Mayor Rahm Emanuel, with less than a month in office, has called for the arrest of all the youths involved in last weekend's mob attack that included an attack on a shopper and on two middle-aged doctors -- in separate incidents -- visiting for an oncology convention. Yet there have been ongoing incidents of wildings that didn't make the front page of local papers as did this last attack on tourists.

Same old story

Scottish Council Disgraces Britain

By Hal G.P. Colebatch 

I had to read it a couple of times when it appeared as a small item in a red-top and then check it out from several different sources on Google, including the council's own website. It appears, however, to be true: the West Dunbartonshire Council, in Scotland, is banning books produced in Israel or produced by Israeli authors, along with all other Israeli products.

To make matters worse, the council is stocking the notorious anti-Semitic forgery, The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, which has been repeatedly used since it was concocted by Czarist secret police agents provocateur in the 19th century to justify attacks on Jews.

One journalist has written:

It beggars belief that any democratically-elected municipal council in Britain can get away with such blatant racial prejudice and discrimination. The Council has no concern for the crimes and inhumanities of China, Iran, Sudan, North Korea or Zimbabwe, all of which have appalling records on human rights. Their focus is Israel, and Israel alone.

By this act, West Dunbarton has made anti-Semitism respectable and acceptable…

This is of course correct. But it strikes me that "anti-Semitism" is not strong enough a word to describe what is happening. This is not anti-Semitism of the "we've got nothing against them but we don't want them in the golf-club" variety, nor is it racism of the kind of which the British National Party is accused. It cannot be very pleasant to be a Jew living in West Dunbarton and know that one's culture and identity has, ominously, been singled out in this manner. Quite obviously, if this type of discrimination were applied to any other group, it would not attract forty column-centimeters on the inside pages of a few papers, but universal uproar and political intervention.

Juska’s “journey”

Desperate Grandmas
by Kay S. Hymowitz

Time passes, and we get old. Our faces wrinkle, our hair goes gray and MIA, our teeth yellow, our knees ache, we forget the names of people we said hello to just yesterday on the way to pick up the Geritol, and there are days when a nap sounds real nice.

At least that’s the way it’s been for most of humanity. But rumors that boomers will be joining the great biological stream turn out to have been greatly exaggerated. Boomers—especially feminist-influenced women of a certain class who are now publishing their philosophy of life after 50—will not be growing old. And it seems equally inaccurate to say that they will mature. They are going to season, as Gail Sheehy puts it in her most recent book, Sex and the Seasoned Woman. They will “develop”; they will “grow.” Sheehy and her sister scribes have come forward to tell you that today’s older women are a new breed. They’re busy, busy, busy! They go to the gym! They work in animal shelters! They travel! They get divorced! And yes (Yes! Yes!), they have orgasms!

And in their own inimitably modern, American, follow-your-bliss, self-absorbed way, they want to tell you all about it.

Not so long ago, enlightened women of the boomer generation were known for worrying about equal rights, equal pay, Roe v. Wade, Title IX, and the location of the Masters Golf Tournament. Today, not so much. As they shuffle off into their golden years, many appear to be turning inward. As the title of a catalog that arrived in my mailbox recently put it, they want “Time for Me”—time that appears to involve a lot of anti-aging formulas, herbal supplements, figure-shaping undergarments, and vibrators. Don’t get me wrong. Boomer fems continue to be enemies of the patriarchy. They still want men to do the laundry. Their tone remains defiant. But their personal is no longer very political; even their political isn’t very political. Nobody’s putting it this way, but it seems that liberation politics have become irrelevant to what is now their most pressing concern, which—depending on your emphasis—is: how to bring meaning to their dwindling years, or how to avoid being mistaken for their grandmothers.

It probably should have been clear that Second Wave feminism would be changing direction a while ago. In 1992, Gloria Steinem, who just happened to be staring at 60 at the time, published Revolution from Within: A Book of Self-Esteem. With its talk of the inner child and “authentic selves,” the book was a noticeable break from Steinem’s usual menu of feminist topics. A year later, Betty Friedan gave us The Fountain of Age, in which she proposed that we consider the years past 50 not as a time to play golf and show off pictures of the grandchildren but as “an additional stage of development,” a time of further emotional, intellectual, and spiritual growth. But despite Steinem’s and Friedan’s legendary history as trendsetters, no one paid much attention at the time, doubtless because boomers, who had yet to receive their AARP cards in the mail, were still in a “what, me worry?” mode.

What can go wrong ?

NJ high court: drunks can sue bars that served them

by WALTER OLSON 

Although the New Jersey legislature enacted a law in 1997 flatly barring drunk drivers from recovering damages over their own car crashes, the state’s supreme court ruled that because the law did not explicitly override the state’s dramshop (liquor-server liability) law, it would be read as having left it intact. [NJLJ, NJLRA, more]

Could be more than meets the eye

American Banks Just Increased Their Exposure To Greek And Portuguese Banks

By Gregory White

U.S. banks spent the fourth quarter of 2010 increasing their exposures to Portuguese and Greek banks, according to the latest report from the Bank for International Settlements.

Overall, claims on the eurozone fell by 3.5% in Q4 2010. Claims on Germany shrunk the most, and claims on Ireland fell the most among bailed out states.

But Greece and Portugal didn't see a similar decline to Ireland.

From the report:

Foreign claims on Greece and Portugal also declined during the period, although by much less than those on Ireland. Nearly half of the $10.3 billion (6.0%) fall in claims on residents of Greece was due to a $5.0 billion (5.8%) decrease in reporting banks’ foreign claims on the country’s non-bank private sector. By contrast, a $4.6 billion (9.3%) fall in foreign claims on the public sector of Portugal was the main driver of the $4.3 billion (1.9%) overall decline in foreign claims on that country.

And what country's banking sector actually increased its exposure to both Portugal and Ireland? The United States banking sector increased its claims on both Greek and Portuguese banks. Notably, Spain's banking sector also increased its claims on Portuguese banks significantly.

Animal farm

The Electric Car Albatross

by Eric Peters

Electric cars make sense at amusement parks and golf courses – and on the road, if the road is mostly flat, it’s nice and warm out (but not too warm) you’ve got money to waste, don’t have to go very far (especially in winter) ad don’t mind waiting a couple hours before you can go someplace else.

Otherwise, they’re marvelous.

The hype about electric cars is still years ahead of the actuality. If by actuality you mean an electric car that isn’t more compromised than Arnold’s political career. I remember covering the GM Impact/EV back in the early ’90s, almost 20 years ago. Most of the press swooned; a few Californians bought (well, leased) them. Some even liked them (that’s California for you and also because California doesn’t have winter; more on this below). The car was a money pit for GM, despite all the hoopla and the 

And today?

Cut through the farrago of Happy Talk and the real-world boondoggle’s still the same. The range of the latest electric cars is said to be better. But it is always couched in the ubiquitous marketing con, “up to.” And under ideal conditions.

Your actual mileage will vary.

Consider the Nissan Leaf. On a full charge, Nissan touts a a 100 mile range. It doesn’t tout what the range will fall to when it’s 16 degrees outside and the capacity of the Leaf’s battery declines by “up to” 20-30 percent, which it will as all batteries do when it is very cold out. Now add the additional load on the battery to power things like the heater/fan – and the lights, which you will probably need when it’s dark outside.

There are other forms of loading, too. Passengers and Stuff. Everyone knows that a gas powered car goes slower and burns more fuel the more it’s loaded down with passengers and cargo. The electric car is not immune from the same physical laws. Add a few hundred pounds of weight and it’s going to need more energy to do the same work and that means more draw on the battery, which will mean reduced range as well as reduced performance.

Summer’s not so hot, either – as far as optimizing an electric car’s range. You’ll probably want to run the air conditioning, which will draw power from the battery pack. And high heat can be as unkind to batteries as bitter cold.

So, let’s say the real-word range of a car like the Leaf is 60-ish miles under less-than ideal conditions. That is, in the real world. That might work for close-in commuting. But it could be an uncomfortably close shave if you live in the ‘burbs, 20 or 30 miles out.

At least with a gas-fueled car, you can refill the tank in a few minutes and be back on your way. But when the Leaf runs out of juice, you’re not only looking at an hour or more downtime to induce a partial charge (a full charge takes several hours) you’ll need to locate one of the special 220V charging stations the Leaf requires. This EV does not just plug into any household 110V outlet. The 220V stations is faster – if you can find one.

Just what our typical stressed-out commuter needs – right?

The Chevy Volt at least addresses that problem by carting around its own portable (and gas-fueled) generator, so that when your “up to 40 miles” range on electric power alone fizzles out, you’re not stuck. The car’s gas engine kicks on, pumps juice into the battery, which then runs the electric motor – and keeps you moving. (The Toyota Prius plug-in hybrid operates on the same principle.)

Which is lovely except it concedes that gas power is still better than electric power because without that gas engine, the Volt (and the Prius)ain’t a goin’ no damn where – not very damn far, anyhow.

All this would be kind of funny in a latter-day Pinto kind of way except for one thing: The government never forced the taxpaying public to underwrite Pinto ownership.

Electric cars like the Leaf and Volt come with luxury car MSRPs – until Uncle Sam transfers about 20 percent onto the backs of you and me. The Volt’s MSRP is $40,280. The Leaf’s MSRP is $32,780. What lunatic would pay BMW/Lexus money for either of these things? The answer, of course, is only a few (well-heeled) lunatics of the posturing “green” variety – posturing because by definition, if you can spend BMW/Lexus money on a new car, worrying about the cost of gas is an abstraction. People who really have to worry about spending an extra $10 or $20 at every fill-up don’t buy $32k-$40k new cars. If they do, that’s why they’re having to worry about the cost of fuel.

So, enter Uncle – who is very generous with other people’s money. “Buy” a new Volt or Leaf or one of the other electric Turduckens now available and he will send you a check for $2,500-$7,500 depending on the model. Nissan even advertises the actual cost of its car After Uncle ($32,780 less $7,500) to make the thing seem more appealing.

In summary: The prudent fellow who buys a $15k (and 41 MPG) Ford Fiesta pays full freight but the “green” poseur who buys the electric car that goes maybe 60 or 70 miles before it conks out gets a $2,500-$7,5000 handout at the expense of people like the prudent fellow who bought the $15k Fiesta on his own nickel.

Welcome to the funny farm.

ac

The Road to Serfdom

Tree pruning correctness
By Brittany Pe

       Eddie Sales looks over some of the trimmed crape myrtles on the grounds of Albemarle Road Presbyterian Church.
Every two to three years, Eddie Sales trims and prunes the crape myrtles at his church, Albemarle Road Presbyterian Church. But this year, the city of Charlotte cited the church for improperly pruning its trees. "We always keep our trees trimmed back because you don't want to worry about them hanging down in the way," said Sales, a church member.
The church was fined $100 per branch cut for excessive pruning, bringing the violation to $4,000. "I just couldn't believe it when I heard about it," Sales said. "We trim our trees back every three years all over our property, and this is the first time we have been fined."
The fine will be dropped if the church replaces each of the improperly pruned trees, said Tom Johnson, senior urban forester for city of Charlotte Land Development Division.
"When they are nonrepairable, when they have been pruned beyond repair, we will ask them to be replaced," Johnson said. "We do that for a number of reasons but mainly because they are going to come back unhealthy and create a dangerous situation down the road."
Charlotte has had a tree ordinance since 1978, and when trees are incorrectly pruned or topped, people can be subject to fines, Johnson said.
Trees planted as a result of the ordinance are subject to the fines if they are excessively trimmed or pruned. These include trees on commercial property or street trees. They do not include a private residence. "The purpose of the tree ordinance is to protect trees," Johnson said. "Charlotte has always been known as the city of trees. When we take down trees, we need to replace these trees."
Individuals who would like to trim their trees should call the city foresters to receive a free permit to conduct the landscape work. Foresters will then meet with the person receiving the permit and give instructions on how to properly trim their trees, Johnson said.
The state Division of Forestry recommends that anyone trimming trees should be certified by the National Horticulture Board, but certification is not required to receive a permit.
On private property, fine amounts are based on the size of the tree improperly pruned. For small trees such as cherry trees or crape myrtles, the fine is $75 per tree. Excessive cutting can increase that fine to $100 per branch. For large trees such as oaks or maples, the fine is $150 per tree.
Because there is a widespread lack of understanding on how to prune crape myrtles in the Charlotte area, Johnson said, residents found in violation regarding these trees are asked to simply replace them, and the fine will be lifted.
Sales said trees found in violation at the church must be cut down and replaced with new trees by October, but the church plans to appeal. Sales doesn't know how much it would cost to replace the trees. "We trimmed back these trees in the interest of the church," Sales said. "If we were in violation, we certainly did not know we were."
Typically during the course of a year, Johnson said, about six private residents are found in violation of improper topping or pruning. "We are trying to be pro-active and not trying to fine people excessively," Johnson said.

Be prepared ... for the worst

The Scouts look to recruit more gay leaders and members
by Daily Reporter
Britain's best-known youth movement is going gay-friendly. The Scout Association has revealed plans to boost its number of gay members and leaders in a bid to banish the perception that homosexuals cannot sign up. The half-a-million strong movement has released a video as part of the campaign - which will also let Scouts attend gay pride parades in uniform.
The move has been praised for dragging the group into the 21st century. But some have slammed it for 'steering the organisation' away from its original Christian values.
Wayne Bulpitt, the association's UK chief commissioner, filmed a video offering support to an anti-bullying campaign led by gay rights charity Stonewall. In it he stated: 'Bullying is wrong on every level, not just for the person being bullied, but for the bully too. 'In Scouting we believe that all young people, irrespective of their sexuality, gender, race, creed or background, have an equal opportunity to develop and to be themselves.'
Scouts spokesman Simon Carter said the campaign was designed to move the group away from its reputation as being 'austere and militaristic'. He said: 'There was an assumption that being gay meant you couldn't be part of the movement. 'That was never the case and we are keen to make it clear that we accept people of any particular orientation.
'We have had youth members and adults attend Pride events and plan to do so again this year. 'It shows that we are not just taking about it but are demonstrating our support publicly.'
The association, which ended its ban on' female members in 1991, has created a series of advisory documents on gay issues for members and adult leaders. They are aimed at counselling young people about informing others about their sexuality.
It states: 'Coming out is a major decision in your life. You may decide to tell your family, a friend, your teacher or a Scout leader. 'There is nothing wrong with being gay and being a Scout and the person that you tell should be supportive and non judgemental to what you are telling them.'
Leaders are advised to treat such conversations as confidential, but to have other adults 'within hearing or sight', and to be prepared to pass on details for specialised support organisations. A second leaflet, called Gay Adults In Scouting, reassures prospective leaders and volunteers they will not be turned away on the basis of their sexuality.
Patrick Harvie, the Scottish Green leader, welcomed the move and urged the Scouts to go further and lift their ban on atheists and agnostics.
But it has also been slammed for 'diluting' the group's original Christian theme. John Cormack, of the Scottish Christian Party, said: 'My reaction to this is one of dismay and I suspect many other people will also be deeply concerned.
'Sexual morality is an area where the parents should be taking the lead, not the Scouts. This is a huge step-change away from the Christian founding ethos of the Scout movement.'

Evolution

ΜΗΔΕΝ

Δύο μεγάλα ιδεολογικά ρεύματα αναδύονται και συγκλίνουν αυτές τις μέρες στην Ελληνική κοινωνία μέσα απο το κίνημα των Αγανακτισμένων Συνεργών:
1. Το κίνημα ΜΗ μου πειράζεις τα κεκτημένα προνόμια
2. Το κίνημα ΔΕΝ πληρώνω (δις)

Is She for Real ?

The exterminator

If anyone's looking for Mitt Romney, he's under his bed and won't come out until Ann Barnhardt loses interest in him:

You don't get to be Governor of Taxachusetts by promoting conservative principles.

You want louts punished?

That makes you a 'nasty extremist' in today's Britain

by P. Hitchens
I regret to inform you that you are an extremist, bonkers, a spittle-flecked member of the lunatic fringe. 
That is because you agree with me that Wayne Bishop, whose triumphantly smirking, selfish face looks out at us from amid his terrifying brood of children, ought to be breaking rocks on Dartmoor instead, and to hell with his ‘right’ to a family life.
Bishop is a burglar. He is also a menacing lout who badly needs to learn some lessons in manners, but never will. 
We’ve all seen faces like that and learned to cross the street, or shift down the bus, to avoid them when we see them coming. 
Some people, and God help them, cannot avoid them because they live next to them.
Bishop is the sort of person the law, the police and the prisons were invented to deal with and who – in a sharp break with normal practice – was actually locked up.
As the Ministry of Injustice finally admitted last week, it is harder by far to get into prison than it is to get into university. 
Here are the figures, which should be tattooed on the foreheads of every member of the Cabinet so we are constantly reminded of how useless they all are: ‘96,710 criminals sentenced last year for more serious “indictable” offences had 15 or more previous crimes against their name. They included violent muggers, burglars and drug dealers.
‘Of those, only 36 per cent – around 34,600 offenders – were given immediate custody.’ So even after 15 or more previous offences, they won’t put most of them away. 
So it’s almost an irrelevance that Bishop has been let out of prison in the name of his Human Wrongs. It is amazing that he was inside in the first place. 
You are (for the moment) allowed to laugh at this, or to complain about it. But if, like me, you actually want to do anything about it, then you become an extremist, bonkers, spittle-flecked, lunatic etc. 

The rule of law either applies to everyone or no one.

Why Khodorkovsky Matters

By JOE NOCERA

Over the past six months, I’ve written three columns about Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the former Russian oligarch who has been in prison since 2003, charged, tried, convicted — and recently reconvicted — on transparently bogus tax and embezzlement charges.

Partly, I keep returning to the subject because his lengthy imprisonment offends my sense of justice; his real crime, after all, was challenging Vladimir Putin, the Russian strongman. More importantly, Khodorkovsky’s fate stands as a powerful illustration of Russia’s biggest problem: the contempt the country’s corrupt rulers have for the rule of law.

Yet after each of those columns, I received feedback saying, essentially, that Khodorkovsky deserved what he got. Even if the crimes for which he went to prison were fictitious, he undoubtedly did bad things on his way to becoming Russia’s richest man. “He stole Russian national resources, truly the wealth of the nation,” read one e-mail, referring to Khodorkovsky’s role in founding the now-defunct oil company Yukos. “I have zero sympathy for him.”

A man named William Browder once had zero sympathy for him, too. Browder is an interesting character: the grandson of Earl Browder, a prominent, early American communist, he “rebelled,” he told me recently, not only by becoming a capitalist but by moving to Russia and setting up an investment fund. Started with $25 million, Browder’s Hermitage Fund swelled to $4.5 billion in assets by the early 2000s, making it the biggest Russia-only fund in the world.

“I always knew Russia was corrupt,” he says. “Our theory was that stocks would rise in value as Russia went from complete chaos to merely terrible chaos.”

Still, galled by the blatant theft of shareholder assets by many of the oligarchs, Browder decided to prod things along by becoming a shareholder activist. He hired investigators to root out fraud, which he then exposed in the news media. Quite often, Putin’s government, which was trying to wrest power away from the oligarchs, would step in and take corrective action. Which, of course, would cause the stocks to rise.

Khodorkovsky was one of the executives Browder tangled with over the years. As a result, says Browder, “I was happy when he was arrested.” He adds ruefully, “I didn’t understand that everything had changed.”

But it had. Khodorkovsky’s trial and sentencing forced the other oligarchs to either flee or fall in line. Suddenly, government officials were partaking in the theft instead of trying to stop it. Foolishly, Browder continued his shareholder agitation. But instead of pleasing Putin’s henchmen, his actions angered them.

In the fall of 2005, Browder, returning from London, was refused re-entry into the country. His office was raided, and documents were taken. Officials doctored the documents to fraudulently register his company under new ownership. Then they backdated contracts that made it appear as if the company owed $1 billion. But there was no way to get the $1 billion because Browder had moved Hermitage’s assets to London.

No matter. After some more fraudulent legal maneuvering, the new “owners” asked for a tax refund of $230 million. It was granted within 24 hours.

Browder had hired seven lawyers to help try to untangle the mess. One of them, Sergei Magnitsky, doggedly pursued the fraud, bringing it to the attention of other government officials, and even testified against those who had been the ringleaders. “He said we should bring complaints because it was so obviously a rogue operation,” says Browder.

In fact, there was nothing rogue about it; this was how Russia’s plutocrats now operated. Instead, Browder’s lawyers were the ones feeling the heat, and six of the seven fled Russia. Magnitsky, 36, with a young family, refused Browder’s entreaties to leave as well.

Magnitsky today is dead. He was arrested in 2008 — on “tax evasion” charges — and sent to prison. Held without so much as a hearing, his health deteriorated. In August 2009, a week before a scheduled surgery, he was transferred to a prison that lacked hospital facilities. He died three months later. This week, in a final indignity, Oleg Silchenko, the Interior Ministry official most directly responsible for Magnitsky’s detention and ongoing abuse in prison, was officially exonerated for his role in the case.

“Sergei wasn’t an oligarch,” says Browder. “He wasn't a human rights activist. He was just a guy doing his job. His mistake was having the wrong client.”

And that’s the real point, isn’t it? Khodorkovsky’s illegal jailing leads, inevitably, to Magnitsky’s death. It leads the powerful to have troublesome journalists beaten or killed with no consequences. It allows plutocrats to steal companies from shareholders, to jail whistle-blowers, to extort with impunity. The rule of law either applies to everyone or no one. You can’t carve out exceptions

Complex systems

Take down the Bad Guys

D. Boudreaux

It’s not too much of a simplification to say that modern American conservatives believe the national government to be ignorant, bumbling, and corrupt when it meddles in the U.S. economy, but sagacious, sure-footed, and righteous when it meddles in foreign-government affairs.

Nor are the boundaries of acceptable simplification breached by saying that modern American “liberals” believe the national government to be sagacious, sure-footed, and righteous when it meddles in the U.S. economy, but ignorant, bumbling, and corrupt when it meddles in foreign-government affairs.

This striking contradiction in political viewpoints has not, of course, gone unnoticed.

I was prompted to ponder this contradiction not long ago after I read an op-ed in the Washington Post by the neoconservative William Kristol calling on Uncle Sam to attempt to influence the outcomes of the recent popular uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East. My ponderings produced a hypothesis: Modern conservatives and “liberals” are obsessively fixated on bad guys (just different ones).

For both conservatives and “liberals” the world is full of problems caused by bad actors—greedy, heartless, power-hungry autocrats who deploy illegitimately acquired power to trample the rights and livelihoods of the masses. Ordinary men and women seek liberation from these tyrants, but—being ordinary and oppressed—the typical person cannot escape the overlords’ predation without help. Their liberation requires forceful intervention by well-meaning and courageous outsiders.

For “liberals” the oppressed masses consist of workers and the poor, and the oligarchs who do the oppressing are business people and private corporations. What encourages this oppression are free markets and their accompanying doctrine of nonintervention by government into the economy.

However, contrary to the “liberals,” nonintervention rests on at least three truths: First, the complexities of modern economies are so great, and hard to discern, that it is absurdly fanciful to suppose that government officials can intervene without causing more harm than good. Even the most well-meaning government is akin to a bull in a china shop: Out of its natural element, even government’s most careful actions will be so sweeping and awkward that the net result will be unintentionally destructive.

Second, even if economic intervention begins with the best of motives, it degenerates into a process of transferring wealth from the politically powerless to the politically powerful. The interventions continue to sport noble names (such as the “Great Society programs” and the “Fair Labor Standards Act”) and to be marketed as heroic efforts to defend the weak against the strong. But these, however, are nothing more than cynical and disingenuous political marketing efforts aimed at hiding from the general public the actual, unsavory consequences of these interventions.

Third, many situations that appear to well-meaning outsiders to be so undesirable that someone simply must intervene to correct them are understood by many of the people most closely affected by these situations to be superior to likely alternatives.

“Unequal income distribution” is perhaps the foremost such situation. While most “liberals” are obsessed with the “distribution” of income and believe that people of modest means must be especially disturbed by the fact that some other people earn more than they earn, in fact the typical American of modest means is far less bothered by “unequal” income “distribution” than are members of the “liberal” academy and punditry. This latter fact only further confirms to the “liberal” mind that ordinary Americans need third-party intervention to save them from their own naiveté; ordinary Americans just don’t know what glories they are denying themselves by acquiescing in the prevailing economic power structure.

Modern “liberals” dismiss these three objections to economic intervention as being fanciful excuses used by the economically powerful—and, even worse, also by the economically naive free-market faithful—to provide (flimsy) intellectual cover for predations by capitalist bad guys. The realistic assessments by modern “liberals” indicate to them that economic intervention is necessary and righteous.

A nearly identical debate plays out on the foreign-policy front, but with the sides switched.

For modern American conservatives the oppressed masses consist of foreign peoples yearning for American-style freedom and political franchise. But these unfortunate foreigners are oppressed by oligarchs who happen to control their governments. “Liberals” (and liberals) who adhere to a doctrine of U.S. government nonintervention in foreign affairs raise the same three objections that conservatives (and liberals) raise against government intervention in the economy.

First, the complexities of foreign governments’ relationships with their citizens are so great and hard to discern that it is absurdly fanciful to suppose that Uncle Sam can intervene without causing more harm than good. Even the most well-meaning intervention is akin to a bull in a china shop: Out of its natural element, even Uncle Sam’s most careful actions will be so sweeping and awkward that the net result will be unintentionally destructive.

Second, even if foreign intervention begins with the best of motives, it degenerates into a process of transferring wealth from the politically powerless to the politically powerful. The interventions continue to enjoy noble names (such as “Operation Iraqi Freedom”) and to be marketed as heroic efforts to defend the weak against the strong. But these, however, are nothing more than cynical and disingenuous political marketing efforts aimed at hiding from the general public the actual, unsavory consequences of these interventions in which corporations such as Halliburton and Blackwater rake in huge, undeserved profits at the expense of the American taxpayer and the foreign populations ostensibly being helped.

Third, many situations that appear to well-meaning outsiders to be so undesirable that someone simply must intervene are understood by many of the people most closely affected by these situations to be superior to likely alternatives. As oppressive as Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi regime genuinely was, it’s not at all clear that merely disposing of this particular bad guy has liberated Iraqis from oppression. Saddam’s rule was very much a result—and certainly not the principal cause—of Iraq’s anti-liberal culture and dysfunctional social institutions, not to mention earlier U.S. intervention.

Foreign countries’ political, economic, and social institutions are too complex and too deeply rooted in unique histories to be adequately grasped by American politicians and military leaders. Therefore American intervention—which is inevitably ham-fisted—adds to this mix only confusion and turmoil.

The two kinds of intervention situations aren’t analogous in all details; differences exist. But these differences are small when compared to the similarities. “Liberals’” confidence that domestic markets can be improved by battalions of bureaucrats charged with keeping bad guys in line is surprisingly similar to conservatives’ confidence that the welfare of foreigners can be improved by battalions of U.S. military troops charged with keeping bad guys in line.