The Disregarded Record of U.S. Airstrikes

P.S. Huff

Though his politics are very different from mine, Glenn Greenwald is one of my favorite bloggers. This recent post shows why:

Each time the U.S. bombs a new location in the Muslim world, the same pattern emerges. First, officials from the U.S. or allied governments run to their favorite media outlet to claim -- anonymously -- that some big, bad, notorious, "top" Al Qaeda leader "may have been" or "likely was" killed in the strike, and this constitutes a "stinging" or "devastating" blow against the Terrorist group. These compliant media outlets then sensationalistically trumpet that claim as the dominant theme of their "reporting" on the attack, drowning out every other issue.

As a result, and by design, there is never any debate or discussion over the propriety or wisdom of these strikes. . . . Having the story shaped this way also ensures that there is virtually no attention paid to the resulting civilian casualties (i.e., the slaughter of innocent people); most Americans, especially journalists, have been trained to ignore such deaths as nothing more than justifiable "collateral damage," especially when a murderous, top Al Qaeda fighter was killed by the bombs . . . .

Yet over and over and over, it turns out that these anonymous government assertions -- trumpeted by our mindless media -- are completely false. The Big Bad Guy allegedly killed in the strike ends up nowhere near the bombs and missiles.

Greenwald provides ample examples. By all means, read the whole thing.

Our Learned and Judicious Journalists

P.S. Huff

Writes BBC News:

In 2009 the US not only inaugurated its first black president - it also honoured the president who paved Barack Obama's way to the country's highest post.

Events across the nation marked the bicentennial of Abraham Lincoln's birth, celebrating a man widely seen as the greatest US president . . . .

Does clarity of thought count for anything in modern journalism? To say that Lincoln "paved Barack Obama's way to the country's highest post" may be charming, eloquent, and even a tad stirring, but it is a childish rewriting of history.

Amazon's Sales Tax Policy

P.S. Huff

Prof. Randall Stross, it seems, is unhappy with it. Writes he:

Today, Amazon collects sales tax in only five states, which gives it a continuing advantage over companies who do collect them in all or most states. Competitors aren’t the only ones hurt by Amazon’s stance on sales taxes: it also means the loss of considerable revenue to states and localities that badly need it.

. . . .

. . . . By creating wholly owned subsidiaries for the parts that are treated separately for tax matters, Amazon is under no obligation to collect sales tax. This legal technique is called “entity isolation,” said Michael Mazerov, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington.

His conclusion? "Amazon’s in-house counsel should help the company meet its civic obligations — and toss 'entity isolation' in the trash can."

I of course agree that Amazon should meet its "civic obligations," in much the same way that I agree that 2 + 2 = 4. The pressing question is whether Amazon's policy is in fact a breech of those obligations. Is it unseemly for Amazon to not engage in charity toward state and local governments? And even if it is, why should collecting sales tax from customers be the form of that "charity"?

(Mind you, if Prof. Stross merely wants to argue that the loophole should be plugged, that's a separate question. But the tenor of his article is quite different.)

Book-Burning, Digital Style

P.S. Huff

In yet another blow to the freedom of the digital press, a French court has declared Google's project of "digitizing books and putting extracts online without authorization" to be in violation of that precious jewel of the publishing industry, known to us Anglo-Saxons as Copyright Law:

Google said it believed that it had complied with French copyright law and that it planned to appeal the decision.

“We believe that displaying a limited number of short extracts from books complies with copyright legislation both in France and the U.S. — and improves access to books,” said Philippe Colombet, who is responsible for Google’s books partnership in France.

. . . .

Google has so far scanned 10 million books through partnerships with libraries in its project to put the world’s literature online. Over half of the books are in languages other than English.

Those include books under copyright, of which only extracts can be previewed free. In these cases, Google directs users to sites where they can buy books or libraries where they can borrow them. Other books are in the public domain and can be read and downloaded free.

I do not object to the decision. I am not learned in French law; and so far as I know, its intellectual-property regime is every bit as idiotic as the judge's decision would suggest. But if so, the law should be changed forthwith. Something is wrong with the world when copyright, a government-granted monopoly privilege, is given such sweeping scope that it threatens even a supremely-useful but supremely-limited indexing tool.

"This court case," the renowned BBC tells us, "will be seen as a victory for critics of the plan who fear Google is creating a monopoly over information." ...?! The sort of person who thinks displaying a few relevant snippets of copyrighted books threatens to give Google a "monopoly over information" is the sort of person who hears the wind and fears his house is haunted.

The Late Paul Samuelson

P.S. Huff

The revered Paul Samuelson departed this earth on Sunday. Economists are still struggling to come up with an equation that adequately describes their loss; no doubt it will contain a great many variables, most of them probably expressed in Greek letters.

Bob Murphy has a nice obituary. And jokes aside, may the great man rest in peace.