Eclecticism

Remember the Policy Awareness Market? It was a DARPA-backed plan to establish a “futures” market wagering on the likelihood of terrorist attacks, assassinations, and the like that almost slipped under the radar until being outed and subsequently shut down last July.

The Pentagon will abandon a plan to establish a futures market to help predict terrorist strikes, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee said Tuesday.

[…]

The little-publicized Pentagon plan envisioned a potential futures trading market in which speculators would wager on the Internet on the likelihood of a future terrorist attack or assassination attempt on a particular leader. A website promoting the plan already is available.

When the plan was disclosed by two Democratic senators Monday, the Pentagon defended it as a way to gain intelligence about potential terrorists’ plans.

Earlier, Warner had said that his staff was looking into the program and would report on it later Tuesday. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-New York), said she was appalled to hear of plans to set up “a futures market in death.”

Other Democrats expressed similar alarm.

“The idea of a federal betting parlor on atrocities and terrorism is ridiculous and it’s grotesque,” said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon), one of two lawmakers who disclosed the plan Monday.

Well, guess what? It’s back! Apparently it’s now being run without government involvement, but the idea is still incredibly sick and wrong.

(via Daily Kos)

Incredible. Among the list of concessions that the US wanted from Britain in preparation for Bush’s upcoming visit were Tube closures, minigun battlefield weaponry to use against rioters, and diplomatic immunity for American agents in case protesters are shot.

Home Secretary David Blunkett has refused to grant diplomatic immunity to armed American special agents and snipers travelling to Britain as part of President Bush’s entourage this week.

In the case of the accidental shooting of a protester, the Americans in Bush’s protection squad will face justice in a British court as would any other visitor, the Home Office has confirmed.

The issue of immunity is one of a series of extraordinary US demands turned down by Ministers and Downing Street during preparations for the Bush visit.

These included the closure of the Tube network, the use of US air force planes and helicopters and the shipping in of battlefield weaponry to use against rioters.

While these outrageous requests were turned down, the UK has agreed to create a ‘sterile zone’ extending for blocks around the President’s travel plan to keep people away.

What’s more disturbing? The fact that we have an administration with the unmitigated gall to make such requests in the first place? Or the fact that we have a President who is so mistrusted, disliked, and outright hated by so many people that they feel the need for that level of security?

(via Atrios)

According to The New Republic, it’s looking more and more like we practically have two feuding Democratic parties now: Clinton’s version and Dean’s version.

The division in the party over Dean is less about ideology than about power. Three years after Bill Clinton left office, he and Hillary still control what remains of a Democratic establishment. Terry McAuliffe, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), was installed by Clinton. Most of the powerful new fund-raising groups, known as 527s, and the new think tanks, such as the Center for American Progress, are run by the best and brightest of the Clinton administration. As National Journal noted in a detailed look at what it called “Hillary Inc.,” the senator’s network of fund-raising organizations “has begun to assume a quasi-party status.” And some of the best Clinton talent is heavily invested in non-Dean campaigns, especially Joe Lieberman’s (Mandy Grunwald and Mark Penn), John Edwards’s (Bruce Reed), and Wesley Clark’s (Bruce Lindsey, Eli Segal, and Mickey Kantor).

Dean, by contrast, has come to represent the party’s anti-establishment forces. While the other candidates, especially former self-styled front-runner John Kerry, started the campaign by wooing party leaders, Dean built a grassroots army first–in part by bashing D.C. Democrats and their disastrous 2002 election strategy–and is only now leveraging his fund-raising power to win over establishment types. No Democrats closely associated with the Clintons are working for the Dean campaign. In fact, it’s hard to find a Clintonite who speaks favorably of the former Vermont governor. This evident schism is not just about Dean’s opposition to the war–or even his prospects in the general election. It’s a turf war to decide who will control the future of the party.

It’s an interesting look at where the Democratic party is headed, and there’s some more good analysis at the Daily Kos. It’s my hope that the “old-school” Clinton faction will recognize the strength of what Dean and his campaign are building by getting people — “real” people, not just big-money people — interested, excited and involved. Otherwise, continued rivalry could end up costing us 2004, and four more years of Bush is the last thing this country needs.