If you thought you knew Glenn Reynolds, read this article from Tech Central Station.

I would argue that these investments -- which were among the most dramatic public investments of their times -- were probably not undervalued by those who made them, or by those who benefited by them. But they are undervalued by those of us who take them for granted today. We assume that health is the norm, and sickness the departure, that deadly epidemics are a thing of the past, that water from the tap is safe to drink. But like so many things in life, things are that way because people worked hard to make them that way, not because it's the natural order. And if we want them to stay that way, we'll have to work hard to keep them that way.

Which leaves the question of what to do next. I'm not a physician, or a public health expert, but it seems to me that we face two major areas of challenge. The first is to develop a reliable worldwide system of detecting, and responding quickly to, new outbreaks of disease. The SARS outbreak provided some useful lessons (like "don't cover up the outbreak of a new contagious disease"), but the real problem is that there's not enough of an infrastructure there. We need one.

This will be expensive, but cheap compared to area number two, which is traditional infectious-disease control. Keeping water clean, making sure that sewage goes where it belongs and not where it doesn't, keeping the food supply clean, making sure people are vaccinated and learn to wash their hands, etc. This is expensive. In the United States and the West generally, it calls for a renovation and updating of infrastructure laid down a lifetime ago (read more about that here), and for the re-focusing of a public health establishment that in recent decades has been focusing on side issues (like accidents and gun control) at the expense of its core mission. In the rest of the world, it calls for doing this core mission for the first time.

The capital costs for such a venture are enormous. Modern technologies will help in some areas, but the effort is so huge that it's bound to be enormously expensive. On the other hand, as Fogel also notes, the benefits are likely to be much greater than is generally appreciated. Fogel points out that Britain's economic explosion in the latter part of the 19th century was largely the result of better health. Before that, a sizable chunk of the population was simply too sick to work much, and served as a drag on the economy. That's the state of the world now, really -- and it will only get worse as new diseases like AIDS, SARS, and whatever comes next make their way across the globe.

I've been meaning to blog about this for some time, but it just blew my mind. Is this the Glenn Reynolds who talks about how wonderful the tax cuts are, not only because they give ordinary families like his more money to spend, but because they were the only way to get government to cut spending? Everything he says is more than true - and many liberals would be too cowed to say it. I'm not sure how it fits with his other posts on Instapundit, but it really makes you think.

Sardonic Views is a new addition to the liberal section of my sidebar. If only the media would analyze national issues as well as he analyzes this local bond issue:

Let's look at the math: The debt is anywhere from $3.2 to $4.5 million depending on the day; the Lake County auditor's office estimates the levy would have brought in about $1.24 million per year; with that levy the City claims it could help pay down the debt, pay for garbage collection, hire 3 more fire fighters and not lay off any police officers. Wow. Talk about bang for your buck. "Math, anyone?"Now, let's get serious. Repealing the garbage collection fee while ostensibly under the City's control would be subject to approval from the state appointed fiscal oversight commission. That means the residents of Eastlake could face having their property taxes increased and still pay the garbage collection fee. Plus there are legitimate issues of the City having to pay additional money for the ballpark stadium debt (that the N-HEB pretends will not be a problem) in the next few years.Voters weren't fooled by the promises and alleged short-term savings. They had a deeper understanding of what Eastlake will be facing in terms of taxes and fees in the next several years. More than can be claimed by the deep thinkers of the subject at the N-HEB.

Maybe he should have gone in the conservative section, but his tone about Kerry's recent Cambodia misstatements wasn't gleeful, and he doesn't seem to assume a tax is bad without careful analysis.

This is some kneejerk anti-Bushism mixed in with the reasonable questions here. Bush has done so many bad things, no need for the Democrats to attack every word he says and water down the impact.

Democrats immediately criticized Bush, saying his plan would undermine national security and be viewed as the United States turning its back on key NATO allies, especially Germany. Retired Gen. Wesley Clark, a former NATO commander and now a military adviser to Bush's Democratic rival John Kerry, called the proposal "ill-conceived."

Clark said most terrorist hot spots around the world are "more accessible from Western Europe than from the continental U.S." He also said Bush's plan could damage relations with countries in Europe.

"At the time when we're trying to rebuild our alliance with Europe and asking them to do more in Iraq, this is a slap in the face of the Europeans," said Clark. "This is more unilateralism on the part of the administration."

Sen. Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat who serves on the Armed Services committee, said Bush is "simply moving chairs around the deck" in ways that could threaten U.S. security.

A more diplomatic president could have done all this without offending the Europeans, maybe even scheduled a joint press conference. But I think we can declare that the rebuilding of Germany and Japan are pretty much complete. For all I know, Russia could one day be a threat to them - and they may have to start modernizing some of their own forces, which is fair enough. They will lose the money our military spends there - but right now I'm more worried about our finances than theirs. Even if we don't send the troops right to Iraq, they should still have time to rest and recover at home, since it seems likely they will be rotated there sooner or later.

That leaves South Korea. We already know our troops there are a tripwire, an insufficient force to defeat North Korea, but a signal that if they attack we will be involved. It's possible paring down that force by a third will send the wrong signal - but I'm not sure. If Bush was a president whom I respected I would be willing to accept his judgement in this regard.

Everyone says we kept troops in Europe after Germany was no longer a threat because of Russia. Does the same really apply to Japan? How about after the Soviet empire fell? I really think there is some sort of deep rooted feeling that occupying territory makes a nation more powerful in many minds, strong enough to override logic. Something for any pro Bush people hearing arguments against removing the troops from Europe to keep in mind, and perhaps even apply to Iraq.

Now that we're in Iraq I don't think we can just walk out, but if the people who started this war were completely wrongheaded, they aren't the ones to resolve it.

Alexa has, oddly enough, linked me with Mossback's Lunch. I sometimes drop by to see what they're saying. If they're trying to discuss how we can win the war in Iraq, the approach seems somewhat oversimplified. Could it be that the wish for a man who talks like a 'straight shooter' and saves us the effort of figuring out what is going on got us into this situation?

Apropos Kerry’s promise to fight the war “with more sensitivity", no doubt. The feminist establishment knows this is the main issue in the coming election: do we go back to a sensitive, nurturing, compassionate, and ultimately weak and phony form of leadership that will make our nation ever more vulnerable to attack from within and without, or do we go forward to the resurrection of authentic masculinity as a legitimate factor in our national life? Just as children need the influence of both a mother and a father to reach their full potential, a great nation needs a political dialog that combines compassion with conservatism, and we know where that comes from.

Radley Balko has a good point here, expanding on the work of another blogger. I actually have more hope for Iraq then he would seem to here - because I'm not a libertarian.

Very nicely said. Or, er, written. I've pointed out for awhile now that the same conservative-liberatarian types who don't trust the government to deliver mail are suddenly steadfast in the belief that government can build a liberal society in Iraq from scratch. But A.W. View moves the ball a little further. When things go bad, we're told, it isn't because government can't build a liberal society from whole cloth, it's because the media is too negative, because we aren't spending enough money, and/or because we didn't provide enough troops. Never seems to occur to them that liberal societies by definition can't be planned. Or that the military is trained to tear things down, not build them up.

Not quite what you'd expect from a guy who writes for Fox news. He never has been, of course, but if you browse through his old columns on the Fox News site you may perceive a gentle movement away from the right.

Dubai's used car market moves into the slow laneBy Asma Ali Zain 11 August 2004
DUBAI - Dubai Used Cars Automobile Zone (DUCAMZ), the biggest used car market in the Gulf, is facing an unprecedented slowdown business.
The downturn comes after several years and has been by triggered the unstable political scene in the Middle East, say used car dealers and analysts.

This article does point to the Achilles heel of all the wonderful things Dubai has accomplished. They are the Arab emirate which has shown more determination than any other to create wealth rather than simply pumping it. They've done very well, but much of their business comes from other nations in the gulf. Not only does this limit their growth, but when the oil wealth starts to run out they will have challenges ahead of them.

Increased partisanship has been much discussed in the blogosphere lately. Several people have made a good point - it's really nothing new. From the pamphleteers of colonial times on, partisanship has been common. Even the idea that the press 'should' try and be objective, and should avoid mere bias as opposed to out and out lying, is rather recent.

We should probably expect that that period is more or less ended. I know of no conservatives who expect the Times to have news coverage that they will be comfortable with - although I read several who are outraged by NY Times bias to the left, but not by Fox news or Washington Times bias to the right. In fact, I see much more New York Times hatred then Kerry hatred on the right.

I think what we need is a right wing red states newspaper. Fox and the Washington Times are both based on the East coast. They are professionally conservative - they could no more decide liberals were right about a specific issue than Martha Stewart could declare that women would be better off if they spent more time relaxing and less time trying to make everything perfect. We need a red state newspaper largely staffed by veterens. If they said something was wrong in Iraq, it would be much harder for the current supporters of Iraq to dismiss.

So far I can't find one. Jason Van Steenwyk suggests two - "Tell that to the Dallas Morning News. Or the Nashville Tennesseean." Both of these papers have most of their news from Iraq from newswires he considers too liberal.

Mark A.R. Kleiman asks an interesting question about when a lay Catholic can vote for a politician who disagrees with an article of official doctrine and when they can't.

I'm not an expert, but I follow this issue, partly because I wonder if it could lead to a backlash. Many Protestants who are gleeful now would get very upset if this was extended to not voting for Protestants.

There is some ambiguity as to what is a sin and what isn't. There are old rules about when a fetus quickens left over from before the Church signed on to 'no abortion at any time'. As far as I know, these ideas of St. Augustine have never been officially repudiated, but merely ignored.

The first papal canon, Effraenatam, that universally imposed a penal penalty of excommunication for abortion was issued by Sixtus V in 1588. It applied to all abortions and was reserved to the Holy See. In 1591, the law was modified by Gregory XIV so that the penalty would not apply when a fetus was not "animated" or "ensouled" under the Aristo-Aquinan theory of when human life begins (not before 40 days) and gave the local bishops control of these cases. This was motivated, at least in part, by the sheer volume of litigation the law had produced ("reserved to the Holy See" meant that each case had to be taken to Rome for the excommunication to be lifted). In 1869, Pius IX rescinded the animation exception. The canons of the 1917 and 1983 Codes apply to all direct abortions. Abortions incident to otherwise lawful medical care that is required to save the life of the mother (e.g. chemotherapy, hysterectomy of a cancerous uterus) are given an interpretive exception from the rule under the priciple of "double effect."

Given that something is a sin, when is a Catholic allowed to vote for a politician who supports it? If the politician supports other stands the Church favors? If they are not 'allowed' to vote for someone because of their opinion on one issue, when is it a mortal sin to disobey, and when is it a venial sin?

I've never seen official answers to these questions, and if there were any it would have been harder for Kennedy to say that as President he would not speak for the Church - and they would not speak for him. But since the question is not addressed in any Papal bulls, there is no law against an Archbishop declaring that a certain vote is a mortal sin.

Archbishop Raymond L. Burke will issue a pastoral letter addressing more fully questions raised by his reported statements last week that Catholics commit a mortal sin by knowingly voting for a candidate who advocates abortion.

On the other hand, Tony Blair is pro-choice but:

Even so, the Vatican itself may have played host to some unplanned intercommunion. Last February 22, British Prime Minister Tony Blair may—or may not—have been given Communion at a private papal Mass he attended with his Catholic wife and children. Neither the Vatican nor Downing Street is saying what actually happened, and people who were present give contradictory accounts. In Ecclesia de Eucharistia John Paul notes that the practice is permitted in special circumstances “to meet a grave spiritual need for the eternal salvation of an individual believer.” But corporate intercommunion “remains impossible,” he says, pending the reunion of separated churches.

As opposed to abortion as the Pope is, he doesn't seem convinved Blair is headed for hell unless he changes his mind, let alone those who vote for him.

Ramadi news item - bad news almost definitely. The governor of Al-Anbar, the Iraqi province with Ramadi in it says he will resign if kidnappers release three of his sons who were taken four days ago. According to google news, this hasn't hit any American or British papers yet. The story is in this article published in the Chinese (English language website) Xinhua online, this article from the South African News24, and this article from the Hindustan Times of India. The last article is from the French AFP newswire.

"I am ready to comply to your demands, and if you believe my presence in the city of Ramadi, the provincial capital, does not serve the interests of the region, I am ready to go," Abdul Karim Burghis al-Rawi said in an open letter.
However, Burghis defended his period of office, saying that he ordered the delivery of food and medicine to Fallujah residents when the city was under siege by the US forces in April.
On July 28, unidentified gunmen stormed the governor's home in the flashpoint city of Ramadi, kidnapping his three sons aged between 15 and 30 and setting ablaze part of the house while the official was at work.

My mind keeps coming back to Mark A.R. Kleiman's question, Why is it pro-war to pretend things are going well?

After reading Steven Den Beste's post on Terrorism, I thought of Mark A. R. Kleiman's post asking Why is it "pro-war" to pretend that things are going well?

Steven starts out with a generalized discussion about Guerrilla warfare and terrorism which I mostly agree with. He than talks about the our enemies' most recent strategy in Iraq of pushing out our smaller allies by kidnapping their citizens and or soldiers. He talks logically about the dangers of this to us - but never asks if Bush should have anticipated this when assembling his coalition of the willing. Except for Britain, in sheer numerical terms the numbers are quite small. Even if the gain was worth the risk - was the risk adaquately planned for?

Steven refers to the June 28th handover as a major victory - but if merely declaring Allawi to be in charge is a victory, why did we wait so long? Militarily we lost Falluja - we don't have troops there anymore. When serious warhawks are watching Ramadi to see if it goes next, saying we're winning isn't always bringing us closer to victory. Remember instead Steven's original discussion of how winning Iraq was supposed to cut down on terrorism from all over the Middle East - by building a prosperous democracy where people could get good jobs to support themselves and replace humiliation with pride in genuine achievement. See my previous post on Dubai, and also Mark A.R. Kleiman:

Having never been certain that invading Iraq was a good idea, I'm not now certain that it was in fact a bad one. And whether it was a good decision or not, I'm still a "war supporter" in the sense of thinking that, having invaded, we need to observe Napoleon's principle: "If you start out to take Vienna, take Vienna." But that "pro-war" viewpoint makes me more, not less, interested in knowing, and saying, just how badly things are going at the moment.
I never thought that Iraq was going to be a working liberal democracy, or even a reasonable approximation, anytime soon. (According to the neocons, that made me a racist, if I recall correctly.) Now the odds of that seem even longer than they were. But there's a difference between a mediocre outcome and a disastrous one, and I'd like to see us stick around and pay what it costs, in blood and treaure, to achieve mediocrity.
Minimizing how badly things are going right now does not, however, facilitate that outcome. Yes, predicting that the current adventure will end badly, linked with the proposal that we cut and run, does tend to encourage the other side. But noting that things are, at this very moment, going to Hell in a handbasket isn't "anti-war."