Good Free Trade News

Bush did not succomb to special interest demands and rejected a cap on importation of Chinese steel.

Kudos to Bush on this one and kudos for his simple justification:

I find that the import relief would have an adverse impact on the United States economy clearly greater than the benefits of such action...

-Mr. Alec

Sustainable Development, Economists, and Neo-Malthusians: What if they could get along?

There is a dangerous belief amongst many environmentalists and biologists that economics and free markets stand to harm the environment, not help it. This is a result of a long history of a robust economy coming at the cost of acid rain and destroyed rain forests. I largely think that this is a result of two things; first, smug economists love getting their kicks off of proving dooms day theorists wrong and second an antiquated notion of 19th century utilitarian and the terrible memories of the industrial revolution. The smug economist is best exemplified by Julian Simon who embarrassed the sensationalist neo-Malthusian Paul Ehrlich (John Tierney famously detailed this here and made a great analogy of it to oil here). This contentious relationship has radicalized both sides of the debate, giving the impression that the approach supported by economists is mutually exclusive to that supported by many biologists; further review actually demonstrates the opposite. In fact, when economic reasoning is tempered down and actually applied the catastrophic possibilities of future myopic economic growth policies, neo-Malthusians and economics can come to reinforce one another; neo-Malthusians providing the impetus and economics providing the mechanisms whereby grave trouble can be averted.

In a fantastic, but ultimately flawed essay in his book Consilience, biologist and staunch environmentalist E.O. Wilson splits the world into two camps, (1) naturalists, those for a responsible environmental ethic, and (2) exemptionalists, those who believe in the myopic exploitation resources for the short-term benefit of the economy[1]. While Wilson represents the naturalists, he argues that the academic force behind exemptionalism is economics[2]. To Wilson, economics represents, “the single greatest intellectual obstacle to environmental realism.”[3] But while it is easy for Wilson to say this when economics is represented by the caricature of 19th century neo-classical pigheaded economics that is Julian Simon, a deeper inspection of Wilson’s claims and specific examples dismantles Wilson’s implication that economics and environmental realism are mutually exclusive.

First it is necessary to make a distinction between private and public goods because it is a result of this distinction that Malthus and Ehrlich were wrong and precisely the reason that Wilson may be correct. A private good is one that can be easily divided, made excludable, and sold on the market (e.g. widgets or books). A public good is one that is not scarce and can not be made excludable to those who do not purchase it (e.g. the atmosphere, national defense, the environment, or the ocean). The importance of this is that economics teaches us that private goods are efficiently used, while public goods are almost never used efficiently (though they can be, but on coincidentally).

Let’s first examine private goods. The best argument used by ignorantly optimistic economists is that they have yet to be wrong. This is best exemplified by the gloating of some economists over the success of Simon’s wager with Ehrlich. But this wager was successful because economics teaches that if demand increases from increased population that prices will rise, prompting an increase in investment in technological growth and a decrease in consumption. It also teaches us that producers will never use their property in a myopic way; lest they put themselves out of business (the most vicious anti-environmentalist will always protect the biodiversity of his farm or the safety of the cattle on his ranch). These lessons demonstrate why food, water, and oil (to name a few) have not run out, as Ehrlich once prognosticated[4]. Wilson discusses the prospect of a water crisis as a result of future population increases, but in so far as water is a perfectly private good, we will never run out of it (of course nothing is a perfectly private good, but stay with the argument). This is because, if the price of water rose, the otherwise needless consumption of it would plummet[5]. If the price of everything related to water increased, then use of those things would decrease and so would use of water. This would leave water left for those who value it most. On top of this, if the price rose, then so would incentive to create alternatives to use of water (leaving it for essential use only, e.g. so we could wash ourselves with something other than water, leaving it for drinking). David Gertham discusses technology in What is Economics and Why Study It when he explains how, “current technological changes toward miniaturization promise to conserve even more of countless different resources.”[6] Wilson dismisses the prospect of future miracles by stating that even, “technologies have limits.”[7] But an important distinction has to be made here. Simon is correct in that there is no limit on the ability for humans to expand the technologically feasible possibilities[8], but Wilson is correct in that the present economy runs on some irreducible resources that will eventually reach their breaking point.

Wilson would probably argue that he is not so much concerned about the potential for technological evolution to fix problems in the short run, but more that he is concerned that there is only a small chance that all these technological revolutions will lessen man’s environmental impact. Essentially that even though water can be sold as a private good, it is a scarce good that is ultimately a public good, in so far as its overuse has negative effects on the rest of society not compensated for (or in economic lingo, negative externalities). An example of this would be if a river was rerouted, causing an environmental hazard on the scale of that which destroyed the biosphere II experiment, which was miserable failure at attempting to create a completely independent biosphere (to many this proved that man is incapable of ever creating or even controlling the intricacies of the earth's ecosystem which is efficiently discussed here) [9]. The harm of that would be felt by all, but the person who rerouted the river would suffer no harm because of his actions. The reason the catastrophe happened in this hypothetical case is because the river was not a private good, it was rather one relied on by everyone (thus public), and when it was overexploited it ruined everyone. However, had it been privately owned by all that were effected by it, then economics tell us such a catastrophe would never be allowed to happen. Similarly, Wilson talks about fishermen who are notorious for over fishing the ocean[10] (a public good), but compare this to the long-term viability of an Emu farmer, who would never in a million years slaughter his flock to extinction. Jared Diamond also discusses the overuse of public goods in his examination of the fall of the Easter Island civilization in Collapse. Diamond singles out the destruction of the hauhau and toromiro trees as the tipping point that led to a drastic drop in food production, which in turn led to cannibalism, and the eventual ruin of society[11].

But further inspection seems to indicate that the spoil of Easter Island could have been avoided with property rights (and proper knowledge, which I will discuss later). If the trees were the only means of building canoes, spears, and ropes as Diamond explains (and thus essential for the Island's economy), then the sale of such wood from those trees would be immeasurably lucrative[12]. As a result, if there were property rights, then those trees never would have gone extinct (assuming that people would have been able to figure out what was causing the extinction of the trees, which is not so much an obstacle for modern man as it would have been for those of fifteenth century Easter Island). This example is just a microcosm of the danger that inefficient use of public goods (which tend to also be the goods most vital to life) pose to civilization. Luckily economics provides a means for making such essential goods “privitizable”. The most popular mechanism is tradable permits. These allow a government to establish a sustainable level of pollution or number of fish that can be caught. Firms then can buy and sell permits, but the total amount of environmental resources used remains constant. This is the best solution to the biggest problem Wilson talks about: global warming[13]. Simply capping the acceptable level of carbon dioxide pollution would avoid the devastating impact of rising temperatures.

But with environmental biology and economics united, the remaining hurdle is the synthesis of politics and human desires. Wilson talks about how the historic Agenda 21 agreement that would have solved, “virtually all of the general problems of the environment,”[14] was made worthless in the face of, “political squabbles arising from national self-interest.”[15] Of course, a shrewd observer would notice that the political problems associated with this are not just derived from national self-interest but also politicians who need to please their constituency, a constituency that, as Malthus convincingly postulates, has an undying passion for procreation[16]. This may end up being a non-issue due to advances in contraceptives and trends in female rights that severely limit procreation (something economics has extensively studied). But if we are not that lucky, then we have discovered that any potential crisis is not a matter of population growth, but of a necessity to sustain population growth through the harmful exploitation of public goods. While economics has prior been used to speed up the necessary economic growth that facilitates the demand for population growth (and as a result is often myopic and threatens our ecosystem), it can also be used to set the constraints on the economy that would stop its destruction of earth’s delicate ecosystem. In that world, technological advancement would have to evolve under the confines efficiently set up by bio-economists, allowing for continued improvement of GDPs and increases of population, but while keeping mankind’s ecological footprint at the same, sustainable level.

Instead of squabbling, economics and biology ought to incorporate one another. Wilson makes a great suggestion when he calls on economists to use “full-cost accounting, which includes the loss of natural resources.”[17] But Wilson creates little interdisciplinary friendship when he characterizes all of economics as neoclassical and blames it for the failure of Agenda 21[18]. In fact, many of the most conservative economists (namely Becker and Posner) are on record as supporting caps on pollution in order to avoid global warming. This, of course, was not achieved until economists saw all the relevant data. But this should be seen as a positive sign, economists are an obstacle to environmental realism only in that they have to be convinced of long-run and short-run marginal costs and benefits. They are not all interested in promoting an undying optimism about the future of mankind and the earth (like Simon). In fact, economics is the sight of an enormous level of interdisciplinary interaction. Over the past three decades it has synthesized its tools with disciplines as diverse as law, religion, sports, and criminology. Hopefully a similar level of academic synthesis will occur over coming years with environmental biology providing the necessary data for economists to examine and in turn make policy recommendations that will allow a sustainable, ethical, and efficient environmental ethic. Of course enormous political struggles will still exist, but at the very least the squabbling could become between academics and politicians, as opposed to being amongst the academics themselves.

-Mr. Alec

---

[1] E.O. Wilson. Consilience. Knopf Inc. 1998, pg. 278.

[2] Wilson, pg. 290-291.

[3] Wilson, pg. 290.

[4] Paul Ehrlich. The Population Bomb. New York: Ballantin. 1968.

[5] Wilson, pg. 283-284.

[6] David Gertham. What is Economics and Why Study It? pg. 41.

[7] Wilson, pg. 283

[8] Julian Simon. Famine 1995? Or 2025? Or 1975?. The Ultimate Resource 2. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996, Chapter 5. pg. 88.

[9] Wilson, 279-280.

[10] Wilson, pg. 284.

[11] Diamond.

[12] Diamond.

[13] Wilson, pg. 285.

[14] Wilson, pg. 290.

[15] Wilson, pg. 290.

[16] Malthus.

[17] Wilson, pg. 292

[18] Wilson, pg. 291.

Chronic of Narnia

Watch this skit, it is hilarious, and hopefully an indication of good things to come from SNL.

Interestingly enough it is also getting tons of attention in the media: here and here.

-Mr. Alec

PS Expect a post on the enviornment and economics tonight. I had one up a couple minutes ago but realized it was lacking in a couple of areas (namely links and a little more detail).

Eavesdropping

A great synopsis (and opinion) of the NSA eavesdropping issue was in the Washington Post yesterday. Suzanne Spaulding, who was a legal counsel with the CIA and the House and Senate Intelligence committee, makes a couple of arguments.

1. The Congressional "meetings" were a farce:

The administration says Congress was briefed "at least a dozen times" in the four years since the wiretap program started. Even assuming that these classified briefings accurately conveyed all relevant facts, it appears that they were limited to only eight of the 535 senators and representatives, under a process that effectively eliminates the possibility of any careful oversight...

I'm well aware of the limitations of these "gang of eight" sessions. They are provided only to the leadership of the House and Senate and of the intelligence committees, with no staff present. The eight are prohibited from saying anything about the briefing to anyone, including other intelligence panel members.

It is virtually impossible for individual members of Congress, particularly members of the minority party, to take any effective action if they have concerns about what they have heard in one of these briefings. It is not realistic to expect them, working alone, to sort through complex legal issues, conduct the kind of factual investigation required for true oversight and develop an appropriate legislative response...

The briefings reportedly provided on the National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance program reflect, instead, a "check the box" mentality -- allowing administration officials to claim that they had informed Congress without having really achieved the objectives of oversight.

2. FISA is adequate and necessary:

Instead of going to a judge on the secret court that was specifically established to authorize foreign intelligence surveillance inside the United States, we are told that an NSA shift supervisor was able to sign off on the warrantless surveillance of Americans. That's neither a check nor a balance. The primary duty of the NSA shift supervisor, who essentially works for the president, is to collect intelligence. The task of the judge is to ensure that the legal standards set out in the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) have been met. Which one has stronger independence to say no, if no needs to be said?

FISA anticipates situations in which speed is essential. It allows the government to start eavesdropping without a court order and to keep it going for a maximum of three days. And while the FISA application process is often burdensome in routine cases, it can also move with remarkable speed when necessary, with applications written and approved in just a few hours.

...Perhaps the administration did not believe that these wiretaps would meet the FISA standard, which requires the government to have probable cause to believe that the target of the surveillance is an agent of a foreign power, which includes terrorists and spies. Yet, since 2001, FISA judges have reportedly reviewed more than 5,645 applications and rejected only four. The current judges were all hand-picked by the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who presumably felt that they had the right temperament and expertise to understand the national security imperatives as well as the need to protect civil liberties.

Nevertheless, if administration officials believed they faced a scenario in which the FISA standard could not be met, they could have sought to amend the statute, as they have done several times since the law's enactment in 1978. Several such amendments, for example, were contained in the 2001 Patriot Act.

3. There is no logical justification for bypassing FISA and that one ought to be given to us:

It's hard to imagine that the terrorists do not already assume that we try to listen to their cell phone conversations (after all, it is well known that FISA allows such wiretaps) or that we have technology to help us search through reams of signals. (Check out the Wikipedia definition of Echelon on the Internet.) So what do the terrorists learn from a general public discussion about the legal authority being relied upon to target their conversations? Presumably very little. What does the American public lose by not having the public discussion?

The article continues with legal analysis on why she believes that the law has been broken and none of the administration's arguments hold water. Read the whole thing,

But while the article only gives you probable responses, it is ultimately the responses of Congress and the Judiciary that matter. Congress has not once sent a bill to Bush that he did not like (the metric of dislike being vetoes). The judiciary is still its pugnacious self, stepping in on the Guantanamo Bay issue, but the Supreme Court was different then than it will be in the near future. Will the Roberts' court (with Alito or lapdog of Bush #3) do what its predecessors were always willing to do and will they see it in the same manner? Also, will the disclosure of this program embolden Congress to do its damn job? These are the real questions, stay tuned.

-Mr. Alec

Farming subsidies hurt the third world?

It is frequently purported that first world farm subsidies not only hurt those countries, but also third world countries. The idea is simple; subsidies increase the production of the goods and in turn lower the market price for those goods. This cuts into revenues for farmers of third world countries that are not getting subsidies.

This is the rationale that Nicholas Kristof used today in his call for the first world to repeal its ridiculous farm subsidies. His argument is not unusual:

...subsidies are the problem, not the solution. They have kept marginal land in production, resulting in overproduction and lower prices...

...the arguments against subsidies focused on the harm they do to poor countries by depressing prices of their exports. Europe is the worst offender, subsidizing each cow to the tune of $2.20 a day - more than much of the world lives on. I agree that one of the most effective ways to help poor countries would be to cut our subsidies, especially for cotton.

But this may not be true. Last week the New York Times discussed why. It turns out that poorer nations are almost all net importers of farm goods. This means that a depressed price of food ends up causing cheaper food for the poor:

A 1999 study by economists Alex McCalla of the University of California, Davis, and Alberto Valdes of the World Bank, found that 105 of 148 developing countries, including 48 of the 63 poorest nations, imported more food than they sold. Some poor countries export nonfood agricultural products, like cotton. Yet even including these commodities, 85 of 148 developing countries and 30 of the 63 poorest imported more than they exported.

As a result, some economists are now saying that removing the international farm subsidies would hurt the poor countries. This is backed by a recent study:

Nava Ashraf from Harvard, Margaret McMillan from Tufts, and Alix Peterson Zwane from the University of California, Berkeley, concluded that agricultural supports boosted the per capita income of two-thirds of 77 developing nations, including most of the poorest countries, like Burundi and Zambia.

But the article does make on distinction on something America is particularly guilty of: cotton subsidies.

United States and China provide enormous subsidies to domestic producers. Depressed world cotton prices are intensely hurting African cotton farmers.

This may be why Kristof ends up centering his article around cotton, though it doesn't seem like his is all that interested in discussing the diverging economic consequences of repealing cotton subsidies as opposed to all farming subsidies. On top of that, repealing cotton subsidies may benefit Africa, but end up hurting countries like Bangladesh that are net importers of cotton, for the production of textiles.

But in Krisof's defense, he makes a very strong argument for repealing farm subsidies not to benefit the third world, but to help stagnant American farmers get into sectors of the economy that are not, "a stroke of a pen from going out of business." It is difficult argument to make in a compassionate way and kudos to Kristof for doing it.

-Mr. Alec

NOTE: I should note that this is by no means an argument FOR farm subsidies, distorting markets is rarely beneficial. You can see that by witnessing the host of effects subsidies have that benefit and hurt some countries. When it comes down to it, it is best to have a market based on supply and demand, as opposed to the "stroke of a pen".

Arrested Development

A couple of Arrested Development notes, before I get back into a blogging grove: First, it is not neccesarily canceled. There is news that both ABC and Showtime are interested in bringing in the show if Fox actually formally cancels it--something it has not done, it has merely reduced its order from a full season to 13 episodes

So I just talked about it, but I feel it is worth a little more attention. Most people know that Arrested Development was kind of canceled a couple of months ago, in fact every time I mention that I have been watching it people remark its cancellation. Of course, Fox is typically very smart with its cancellation policy. One only has to look as far as Family Guy, or the fact that Arrested Development was displaced from its lucrative Sunday slot to a Monday slot in order to make room for the unbearable The War at Home.

But a couple of constructive things: first of all, Arrested Development has not been canceled; it is only not making a full season of episodes this year. This is an important distinction because until it is canceled, neither ABC nor Showtime can pick up the show; something that seems within the realm of possibility.

And it seems that the interest Showtime has may be somewhat serious (as opposed to ABC which most articles dismiss as purely speculative). This is interesting because it would probably be paired with Showtime's fantastic Weeds, which is the embodiment of Showtime's attempt at emulating HBO's successful foray into doing more than constantly airing Groundhog Day.

Of course, all the potential suitors may pressure Fox to retain Arrested Development and actually realize that Arrested's viewership problem has nothing to do with the quality of the show and everything to do with its PR department. Or it may not, in which case Showtime might pick up the Bluth family. Finding this out has made me very happy.

But in the meantime, do two things. Go to Amazon and buy season one and two with that gift certificate you just got for Christmas, you will never think of the Blue Man Group, A Charlie Brown Christmas, incest, amputation, or nudity the same. Also, watch the damn show on Fox, Monday at 8pm. I know everyone makes time to watch a rapidly diminishing Family Guy. Watch a truly entertaining comedy that actually has a plot arc in its episodes and features characters, as opposed to caricatures of characters that may have once existed (think Homer and Peter).

Save our Bluths!

-Mr. Alec

Some explaining to do

I have to apologize to everyone for neglecting this blog and for having absolutely no excuse to do so, as I have been done with classes for more than two weeks now.

Lets just say that an unexpectedly lackluster performance on a final could only be fixed by dozens of hours of Arrested Development.

Consider this blog back in business.

-Mr. Alec

DeLay's best defense

I stumbled upon the New Republic's blog, "The Plank" a couple of weeks ago and have found it delightful (although it is clearly left-leaning as opposed to TNR's typical neo-liberal hawkish approach). Regardless, expect a link of it to appear in a couple days on this site (when I am done with finals!!!).

Anyways the purpose of this post is that the Plank highlighted a hilarious section in an Associated Press report on DeLay's trial:

In trying to have those charges thrown out, the defense argued that the Texas money laundering law does not apply to funds in the form of a check, just coins or paper money. But the judge said that checks "are clearly funds and can be the subject of money laundering."

-Mr. Alec

DeLay Spin

Surprisingly enough conservative news outlets handled today's Tom DeLay ruling completely differently. Dan Solove was kind enough to compile the different headlines.

The (truly) surprising thing though, is that the New York Times is by far the most objective of the headlines. While all the other outlets focus on either a charge being dropped or charges being held, the New York Times says it like it most objectively was. Of course you would never guess that given all the shit they get, but it is interesting to actually see it in progress.

-Mr. Alec

War on Christmas

One of Bill O'Reilly's annual events is his decrying of the supposed "War on Christmas" where he calls out everyone and anyone who uses the word holiday instead of Christmas. This has always struck me as stupid, Adam Cohen provides the best arguement yet:

This campaign - which is being hyped on Fox and conservative talk radio - is an odd one. Christmas remains ubiquitous, and with its celebrators in control of the White House, Congress, the Supreme Court and every state supreme court and legislature, it hardly lacks for powerful supporters. There is also something perverse, when Christians are being jailed for discussing the Bible in Saudi Arabia and slaughtered in Sudan, about spending so much energy on stores that sell "holiday trees."

The rest of the article is very interesting. Turns out the Puritans that came to the US hated Christmas because they saw it as having no biblical connections, and thus must be related to Roman pagan festivals on December 25th. But this sentiment carried on for a very long time:

As late as 1855, New York newspapers reported that Presbyterian, Baptist and Methodist churches were closed on Dec. 25 because "they do not accept the day as a Holy One." On the eve of the Civil War, Christmas was recognized in just 18 states.

Of course, that history lesson has little bearing on how we should act, but it is interesting that the "War on Christmas" people can often be so militant about the founding fathers and the religious legacy of this country when that legacy and those founders had entirely different and complicated motives.

-Mr. Alec

Bush on the Insurgency-2003 Style

In light of Iraq's less than stellar situation I thought this quote is rather indicative of everything that as gone on thus far. In July of 2003 the first signs of an insurgency were starting in Iraq. At the White House Bush told reporters this:

There are some who feel like that if they attack us that we may decide to leave prematurely. They don't understand what they're talking about, if that's the case.

Let me finish.

There are some who feel like that, you know, the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is bring them on. We got the force necessary to deal with the security situation.

Bring it on they have, and it sure as hell doesn't seem like we can handle what they have brought thus far.

But in all seriousness, it is interesting how frequently the President use to speak like this, whether it was about bin Laden being captured "dead or alive," "the axis of evil," or even last year upon winning the election he pronounced that, "I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it."

For better or worse we don't hear him make such statements. Obviously that may change soon, seeing as those quotes are also viewed as the high points of the presidency.

All I hope is that Bush thinks things through before making such statements. The "bring them on" quote is ridiculous because it seems that Bush honestly would like to see them bring it on because it would be like a tiny fly taking on the United States. Obviously he should have talked with Kissinger before saying anything like that who once said, "In the process we lost sight of one of the cardinal maxims of guerrilla war: the guerrilla wins if he does not lose. The conventional army loses if it does not win."

-Mr. Alec

Fallows and the WSJ

James Fallows has a very in-depth story in this month's Atlantic detailing exactly what has gone so wrong in the creation of Iraq's own defense force. While wrestling with finals and developing super-secret Straussian interpretations of Machiavelli I have been making my way through the article. Expect a discussion of it soon (like in a week when I am done with finals), but in the meantime I feel the need to say a couple of things.

First, Fallows was all over the network news stations after Bush's speech, earlier this month Oxblog discussed how the article has become "the talk of the town" (the town being Washington D.C.). But all of these are meaningless when the WSJ starts attacking you on their editorial page. To me, this just seems like the ultimate indicator that the Fallow's arguement has had some influence. But what shows me that it also has enormous weight, is that the WSJ did not discuss Fallow's arguements, they just decided to attack him. Here is what they said:

In the latest issue of The Atlantic Monthly, for example, James Fallows purports to explain "Why Iraq Has No Army." But the public affairs office of the Multinational Security Transition Command in Iraq (or "Min-sticky") says Mr. Fallows not only didn't visit but didn't even contact them while reporting the article or at anytime during at least the past nine months.

Well, as you can expect this was just the ammunition that conservatives have been looking for (as opposed to the typically conservative Oxblog which decided to actually respond to his arguments) to discredit Fallows.

But, it turns out the WSJ's assertion is not true. At least that is what TNR's blog, The Plank, is reporting. The Atlantic's editor had this to say the WSJ:

To the Editor:
Your editorial about President Bush's speech latest speech on Iraq ("Complete Victory," Dec. 1) contains a false statement about an article on the effort to train Iraqi forces by our correspondent James Fallows ("Why Iraq Has No Army," Atlantic Monthly, December 2005). You said that according to the training organization, the Multinational Security Transition Command in Iraq, Fallows "didn't even contact them while reporting the article or at anytime during at least the past nine months."

That is untrue. Mr. Fallows had extensive email correspondence, starting last August, with the Public Affairs Officer for that organization, Lieutenant Colonel Frederick Wellman, who arranged an interview with its commander, Lieutenant General Dave Petraeus, in September. Mr. Fallows spoke with General Petraeus by phone for more than an hour, and checked quotes from that interview via Lt. Col. Wellman before using them in his article.

He also interviewed one of Petraeus's deputies, Colonel John Martin, and had not-for-attribution discussions, via phone and email, with other members of the organization. As Mr. Fallows pointed out in his article, and as he has records to demonstrate, the Pentagon's press office turned down his requests to interview Major General Paul Eaton and others who had been involved in the training effort.

At no point before printing this false statement did you contact Mr. Fallows or me to determine whether what you intended to publish was true.

Cullen Murphy
Managing Editor
The Atlantic Monthly

All I have to say is pwned.

-Mr. Alec