Here’s what’s caught my eye this morning:

• If you haven’t already read it, you really need to read a chaplain’s first-hand description of the aftermath of the recent attack in Mosul.
• Lileks fisks Wolcott. It’s a Christmas Bleatdown!
• The Curt Jester reports on Jesus-scented candles.
• A Daily Briefing on Iran wonders if Iran
  is just weeks away from the bomb. (hat tip: Adventures of Chester)
• The Idea Shop suggests three ways Democrats can “improve their economic policy—and broaden their moderate appeal—without abandoning core progressive ideals”.

That’s the lot.

Running a little late today what with Christmas preparations, work intruding, Carnival of the Liberated, etc. Here’s what’s caught my eye today:

• A great series on the ethics of physicians making decisions for patients who have no one else
  continues on Bioethics Discussion Blog
• Citizen Smash continues to report on Pablo Paredes.
• Callimachus of Done With Mirrors on being Left Behind
• Noah Millman of Gideon’s Blog posts
  on options in dealing with Iran.
• Bill of INDC Journal considers She Who Must Not Be Named.
• Another tribute to Steven Den Beste this time from Rishon Rishon. A must-read.
• A long, interesting post from McQ of Q&O Blog on Fukuyama’s take on the rift between Europe and America.
• Joe Katzman on Winds of Change on solving the Mubarak problem.

That’s the lot.

I thought that this was so fascinating that I’ve wanted to post about it since the first time I heard about it. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics there are an average of about 1,400 workplace amputations per year. Most of these amputations are to fingers and hands cut off by saws. It’s a combination of carelessness, lack of experience, and unsafe conditions. It’s a major souce of workman’s compensation claims and loss of productivity (only carpal tunnel results in greater loss of productivity). Unfortunate. Sad. Probably not a great deal that can be done about it.

That is unless you’re physics PhD and lifelong woodworker Steve Gass. Gass has invented a method he calls the SawStop technology that he claims can put an end to these kinds of workplace (or high school shop class or home workshop) accidents. Watch the video. It’s really amazing.

Gass took his invention around to the established tool manufacturers and couldn’t drum up much interest in their licensing his invention (his original business plan) so he’s started manufacturing his own power saws using his remarkable invention. I hope he sells millions of them.

Now I don’t think the moral of this story is that the tool manufacturers are heartless and unfeeling. I believe that established businesses have fairly rigid ideas (frequently wrong) about what business they’re actually in. In this case the tool manufacturers obviously didn’t believe they were in the safety business—they believe they’re in the business of making the cheapest possible saw. Gass’s mistake was in going directly to the manufacturers. He should have gone to insurance companies and state and local governments who have an interest in reducing claims and workman’s comp cases respectively.

The same kinds of rigid ideas about what business they’re actually in is the reason that established businesses haven’t capitalized on the possibilities of Internet commerce that were imagined some years ago. It was widely touted that the Internet would put manufacturers directly into contact with consumers. But that hasn’t really happened. What has happened is that a new group of Internet retailers have sprung up.

The manufacturers just don’t believe they’re in the business of selling to the end-users (the consumers). They’re in the business of selling to distributors, dealers, and other middlemen and won’t threaten their distribution chains on an unproven business model.

Similarly, the recording companies are in the business of selling records, tapes, and CD’s to distributors and retailers not in the business of getting music to customers.

It’s all in how you define your business.

This week’s Carnival of the Liberated, a sampler of posts from Iraqi bloggers, is available now on Dean’s World! This week I’m featuring posts from expatriate Iraqi bloggers (as well as posts from Iraqi bloggers currently in Iraq).

There are only so many alternatives available to us in the fix we’ve found ourselves in after September 11, 2001. These range from the ultra-soft stance—there is no such thing as radical Islamist terrorism—that’s gained some currency in Europe and the Left in the United States to the ultra-hard stance—nuke ’em all—that will occasionally appear in the comments sections of some blogs. Taking these views from soft to hard:

1. There’s nothing to do.
2. If only the United States changes its policies, the situation will resolve itself.
3. Whatever needs to be done can be done through negotiations.
4. It’s primarily a law-enforcement and intelligence matter.
5. It’s a law-enforcement, intelligence, diplomatic, and military matter but military action should only be taken when authorized by the United Nations Security Council.
6. It’s a law-enforcement, intelligence, diplomatic, and military matter and we’ll take military action as we see fit to reduce al-Qaeda.
7. It’s a law-enforcement, intelligence, diplomatic, and military matter and we’ll take military action as we see fit to reduce al-Qaeda or replace uncooperative or undemocratic regimes. Democratic societies won’t provide an environment in which al-Qaeda can endure.
8. It’s a war of civilizations: them or us.

In a recent article from Front Page Magazine (hat tip: The Moderate Voice) author Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, a senior terrorism analyst with the Investigative Project, casts doubt on the first three alternatives. His response to Western scholars and politicians who believe that the recent taped messages attributed to Osama bin Laden represent overtures to negotiation is that they are mistaken. He concludes:

Al-Qaeda has again turned to deception as a means of gaining a strategic advantage in its war against the West. Although many continue to fall for the terrorists’ claims of reasonableness and a limited agenda, al-Qaeda has repeatedly made its true endgame clear: re-establishing a caliphate ruled according to Taliban-style Islamic law, re-conquering all formerly Muslim lands, and preparing Islamic super-state for perpetual conflict with the West. Ignore their true agenda at your own peril.

There have been quite a few posts in the last week or so on the subject of Social Security reform. These posts have varied considerably in tone and content based on the interests, knowledge, politics, and point-of-view of the writers. Without further editorial comment here are some of the various interesting posts from around the blogosphere:

Brad DeLong: Ask Dr. Social Security Projections (UPDATED)

Matthew Yglesias: Annuitization, Pro or Con, A Suggestion

Kevin Drum: Social Security Around the World, Social Security Doom Mongering, Social Security Doom Mongering, Part 2, Real Problems vs. Fake Problems, Inflation and Social Security, Social Security and Me

South Knox Bubba: Social Security Scam

Michael Kinsley on Talking Points Memo

Joshua Marshall of Talking Points Memo: here, here, here, and here

Victor of The Dead Parrot Society: Wage-Indexing and Social Security, Social Security Phase-Out

Steve Verdon of Deinonychus antirrhopus: Social Security in the News, Social Safety Net, Flip Flopping, Social Security: The Moving Bankruptcy Date, When In Doubt Mislead, Mislead, Mislead, Comparing Social Security Rescue Plans, and Social Security, The CPI and Wage Indexing: A Followup

Jon Henke of Q&O Blog: SS Canary

McQ of Q&O Blog: Social Security Reform: Learn from Chile and improve upon their system

Clayton Cramer: Social Security Reform

This is not intended to be an exhaustive rundown but rather to include some pretty representative offerings. Many of these posts have links of their own which flesh out the discussion even more.

I’m not going to attempt to contribute anything to the economics of this. But I would like to make a few (what I believe to be) commonsense observations on what will and won’t happen in Social Security reform.

We’re not going to eliminate Social Security—either the payroll tax component which everybody agrees is regressive or the benefits part which everybody agrees is simultaneously too much and too little (too much for people who don’t need it, too little for those who do). The young will continue to pay for the old age of the previous generation exactly as thousands of previous generations have done. It won’t do them a bit of good to get angry or resentful about it.

We’re going to do this because we’ve promised to do it. And we’re going to do it because it’s the right thing to do. Satisfying these obligations may cause some re-ordering of spending priorities in government—get used to it because it’s going to happen. So stop hyperventilating.

We could have solved whatever problem there is years and years ago by saving and investing the revenues from FICA. Instead we chose to build up our military, go to the moon, build highways, educate children, pay air traffic controllers, and all of the thousands of things that the federal government does. Sure, some of the money was wasted. But it also went to pay for the world we have now. Deal with it.

Our system is not an anarcho-capitalistic system. We’re going to continue to have government and it’s going to continue to take money from some people and give it to other people. And we don’t have a syndicalist system. So it doesn’t matter a bit if you personally agree or disagree with the particular ways in which the federal government spends money.

No, we have a representative democracy (I’d like it to be a little more representative than it is right now) and things won’t be determined by experts or by the unfettered market or by what you personally like or dislike. It will be the same old, messy political system that’s been bumbling along for more than two hundred years.

How will we solve whatever problem there is? We won’t solve it with any grand solution whether that solution is privatization or anything else. We’ll solve it by borrowing a little, re-ordering spending a little, raising FICA max, and arranging that more of the people who don’t pay FICA now pay FICA. Maybe we’ll raise FICA marginal rates a little. I hope not. Maybe we’ll raise the Social Security retirement age. I hope not. Maybe we’ll reduce benefits. I hope not. Maybe we’ll eliminate FICA max entirely. I hope so. Maybe we’ll means-test benefits. I hope so.

Maybe we’ll also engage in some sort of enforced savings scheme that is currently being called privatization. I honestly don’t see how that will actually solve any of the problems that we actually have. Insofar as it reduces the amount of revenues at the Congress’s disposal the re-ordering of spending priorities, borrowing, etc. will still be necessary. And I honestly don’t see how forcing people to save for their own retirements will make them any freer than forcing them to pay for someone else’s.

So why don’t we wrap our minds around the idea that we will solve this problem in due course? And let’s figure out a solution to the problems posed by Medicare which is already in default (outlays exceed revenues) and which reflects a commitment two or three times the size of Social Security. Time’s a wastin’.

Quite a few of my favorite bloggers are on holiday hiatus. Here’s what’s caught my eye this morning:

• Gerard Vanderleun of American Digest shows us how to crochet the Lorenz manifold.
• The Becker-Posner Blog’s topic for this week is global warming.
• Dean Esmay has an excellent post on why Ebonics shouldn’t be fought.
• Sarahk of Mountaineer Musings finds that Frank J made me a criminal or
  Watch what you’re trying to get through airport security. A Christmas story for our times.
• Angela Winters of Politopics asks Are Charter Schools Working?.
• Tutakai is back after a one-month hiatus. He’s joined the anti-Rumsfeld bandwagon.

That’s the lot.

Here are a few things to take a glance at this weekend:

• Rat-blogging from Boudicca’s Voice and The Diplomad. Am I
  missing out on something?
• Quiz-kid praktike on Are QIZ’s a copout?
• Smash seems to be making news (again).
• Benefit concert blogging from Donald Sensing of One Hand Clapping.
  A good place to look for the real meaning of Christmas.

I could never be a diplomat. Some things which seem to make sense to diplomats just don’t make any sense to me at all. Well, maybe they don’t make any sense to some diplomats, too. From The Diplomad:

OK, we can understand why Russia got into the club, i.e., some years ago when there was great promise that Russia could become both a democratic and free market country, inviting it to the then-G-7 made sense — perhaps. But let’s face it, Russia was never the right number 8 country for any objective reason. The 7 biggest GNPs in the world are: The USA, Japan, Germany, the UK, France, Canada and Italy. 8-10 are Spain, China (hard to tell exactly), and probably India. Russia is maybe 11, although high oil prices might make it move up a notch this year.

Take a look at the following chart:

United States	11,000,000,000,000	37,800
United Kingdom	1,666,000,000,000	27,700
France	1,661,000,000,000	27,600
Germany	2,271,000,000,000	27,600
Canada	958,700,000,000	29,800
Japan	3,582,000,000,000	28,200
Italy	1,550,000,000,000	26,700
Russia	1,282,000,000,000	8,900
Brazil	1,375,000,000,000	7,600
China	6,449,000,000,000	5,000
India	3,033,000,000,000	2,900
Spain	885,500,000,000	22,000
Mexico	941,200,000,000	9,000

Okay. Now, ignoring the first column just look at the first seven rows. Which of these is different than the others? The answer is obvious: the first row. Remember that when you hear anyone saying that the United States should be negotiating with other nations from a position as an equal. Like it or not that’s just not true. Oh, and those first seven rows are the G7 countries by the way.

Now, ignoring the first column again, look at the first eight rows. Which of these is different than the others? The answer is a little less obvious since that first row is still an outlier. But there’s still a pretty obvious answer: the eighth row. Surprise! That row belongs to Russia.

Now compare rows 8, 9, 12, and 13 and remember that the G8 is putatively a trade organization and not a military organization. Why does row 8 belong with rows 1 through 7 and neither rows 9, 12, nor 13? This just doesn’t make any sense to me at all.