News Leader

Oy:

(Hat tip: Conor)

Despite the fact that American politics has been fixated on terrorism for almost a decade, we've failed to establish a clear and concise definition for terrorism. I don't think it's because terrorism is so amorphous that it requires the pornography standard ("I know it when I see it"), but rather because any proper definition might implicate us as a nation in having participated in terrorism in the past. Ann has described the murder of Tiller as terrorism, and I think she's right.

My working definition of terrorism is pretty simple: Terrorism is the deliberate murder of civilians or destruction of property in order to achieve a political objective. I think this definition works because it covers everything from cross-burnings and lynchings to the Weathermen bombings to the attack on the World Trade Center.

Viewed in this light, the murder of George Tiller is undoubtedly terrorism. It was done with an audience, as Tiller was in church with his wife in the room at the time -- in other words, with the exact kind of theatricality terrorists require to achieve their objectives. The point was not simply to murder a man who performs abortions, it was to dissuade any one else from providing similar services. As Matthew Yglesias points out, this has been remarkably successful at dissuading potential abortion providers from providing this kind of care -- in other words, the murder of Tiller is likely to achieve the political outcome that was sought.

Andrew Sullivan has also pointed out that Tiller was a frequent target of Bill O'Reilly, who referred to Tiller as a "baby killer" and his practice as a "death mill." He also compared Tiller to Nazis and warned of "judgment day". Interestingly enough, O'Reilly, who has a degree in journalism but no understanding of libel law to speak of, seemed confused on a recent program as two lawyers explained to him that his rights are not actually being violated when people single him out for harsh criticism. O'Reilly furiously disagreed.

O'Reilly thinks his own rights are being violated when people criticize him in ways he disagrees with. I wonder if yesterday he thought Mr. Tiller's civil rights were violated.



-- A. Serwer

How Canadian can you get?

The Finance Minister understates the deficit by $16 billion. Do we get mad?

Nah. The guy's doing his best. Let's give him another chance.

Canadian Press:

OTTAWA - Canadians appear to be willing to cut Finance Minister Jim Flaherty a little slack over his deficit shocker.

A Canadian Press Harris-Decima poll shows few Canadians think the
finance minister should resign just because he made a $16-billion
mistake on his deficit projection.

The survey of 1,000 people finds only 28 per cent who want Flaherty to
step down, while 59 per cent think he should stay on the job.

Even among Liberal supporters, 54 per cent don't think he should lose
his position because the budget deficit has ballooned to more than $50
billion - not the $34 billion predicted in the budget four months ago.

What's the administration's specific aim in bailing out GM? I'll give you my theory later.

For now, though, some background. First and most broadly, it doesn't make sense for America to try to maintain or enlarge manufacturing as a portion of the economy. Even if the U.S. were to seal its borders and bar any manufactured goods from coming in from abroad -- something I don't recommend -- we'd still be losing manufacturing jobs. That's mainly because of technology.

When we think of manufacturing jobs, we tend to imagine old-time assembly lines populated by millions of blue-collar workers who had well-paying jobs with good benefits. But that picture no longer describes most manufacturing. I recently toured a U.S. factory containing two employees and 400 computerized robots. The two live people sat in front of computer screens and instructed the robots. In a few years this factory won't have a single employee on site, except for an occasional visiting technician who repairs and upgrades the robots.

Factory jobs are vanishing all over the world. Even China is losing them. The Chinese are doing more manufacturing than ever, but they're also becoming far more efficient at it. They've shuttered most of the old state-run factories. Their new factories are chock full of automated and computerized machines. As a result, they don't need as many manufacturing workers as before.

Economists at Alliance Capital Management took a look at employment trends in 20 large economies and found that between 1995 and 2002 -- before the asset bubble and subsequent bust -- 22 million manufacturing jobs disappeared. The U.S. wasn't even the biggest loser. We lost about 11 percent of our manufacturing jobs in that period, but the Japanese lost 16 percent of theirs. Even developing nations lost factory jobs: Brazil suffered a 20 percent decline, and China had a 15 percent drop.

What happened to manufacturing? In two words, higher productivity. As productivity rises, employment falls because fewer people are needed. In this, manufacturing is following the same trend as agriculture. A century ago, almost 30 percent of adult Americans worked on a farm. Nowadays, fewer than 5 percent do. That doesn't mean the U.S. failed at agriculture. Quite the opposite. American agriculture is a huge success story. America can generate far larger crops than a century ago with far fewer people. New technologies, more efficient machines, new methods of fertilizing, better systems of crop rotation, and efficiencies of large scale have all made farming much more productive.

Manufacturing is analogous. In America and elsewhere around the world, it's a success. Since 1995, even as manufacturing employment has dropped around the world, global industrial output has risen more than 30 percent.

More after the jump.

--Robert Reich

MORE...

Ex-VA AG Bob McDonnell, the GOP gubernatorial nominee in Virginia, announced some campaign fundraising numbers today, the Monday after he was officially nominated at the VA GOP's state convention over the weekend. Since the start of the 2nd quarter 4/1, McDonnell's camp says it has raised $3.7M from 2,159 donors (making the average donation per individual right around $1,700). When combined with monies still left over from the 1st quarter, McDonnell's camp claims "nearly" $4.9M cash on hand, according to a release.

This weekend's nominating convention was just a formality for McDonnell, who's been running unopposed for the GOP nomination since January. He's still waiting for VA Dems to choose his opponent from three contenders: ex-DNC chair Terry McAuliffe, state Sen. Creigh Deeds and ex-Del. Brian Moran. Dems are set to make their selection in a statewide primary 6/9.

The fundraising numbers are something of a formality, too. Along with the hotly contested NJ gubernatorial race, VA GOV is seen by both national parties -- but particularly by the beleaguered Republicans -- as a harbinger of '10's congressional cycle. Both parties are expected to pour vast amounts into VA's general election contest, making it tough for either nominee to grab a monetary advantage in the race. It's also hard to determine exactly what candidate fundraising totals foretell in a state with no contribution limits.

Still, McDonnell has shown that he's ready to fight hard to pull the purple VA back into the red column in Nov. Most polls show him leading a general election matchup against the Dem, even after an expensive statewide ad campaign targeting him run by the DGA through a VA-based 527.

There's also the boisterous Dem primary fight, which has focused even more attention on McDonnell criticisms. But the Republican's campaign says all the noise coming from the Democrats has been a good thing for McDonnell.

"We continue to build the resources we need to win this November," McDonnell's campaign manager, Phil Cox, said in the statement announcing the fundraising numbers. "And we are doing this while our potential opponents are waging an expensive and increasingly negative primary race. This is a crucial advantage as we take Bob McDonnell's positive message of new jobs and more opportunities to every voter in Virginia."

(EVAN McMORRIS-SANTORO)

What's the administration's specific aim in bailing out GM? I'll give you my theory later.

For now, though, some background. First and most broadly, it doesn't make sense for America to try to maintain or enlarge manufacturing as a portion of the economy. Even if the U.S. were to seal its borders and bar any manufactured goods from coming in from abroad -- something I don't recommend -- we'd still be losing manufacturing jobs. That's mainly because of technology.

When we think of manufacturing jobs, we tend to imagine old-time assembly lines populated by millions of blue-collar workers who had well-paying jobs with good benefits. But that picture no longer describes most manufacturing. I recently toured a U.S. factory containing two employees and 400 computerized robots. The two live people sat in front of computer screens and instructed the robots. In a few years this factory won't have a single employee on site, except for an occasional visiting technician who repairs and upgrades the robots.

Factory jobs are vanishing all over the world. Even China is losing them. The Chinese are doing more manufacturing than ever, but they're also becoming far more efficient at it. They've shuttered most of the old state-run factories. Their new factories are chock full of automated and computerized machines. As a result, they don't need as many manufacturing workers as before.

Economists at Alliance Capital Management took a look at employment trends in 20 large economies and found that between 1995 and 2002 -- before the asset bubble and subsequent bust -- 22 million manufacturing jobs disappeared. The U.S. wasn't even the biggest loser. We lost about 11 percent of our manufacturing jobs in that period, but the Japanese lost 16 percent of theirs. Even developing nations lost factory jobs: Brazil suffered a 20 percent decline, and China had a 15 percent drop.

What happened to manufacturing? In two words, higher productivity. As productivity rises, employment falls because fewer people are needed. In this, manufacturing is following the same trend as agriculture. A century ago, almost 30 percent of adult Americans worked on a farm. Nowadays, fewer than 5 percent do. That doesn't mean the U.S. failed at agriculture. Quite the opposite. American agriculture is a huge success story. America can generate far larger crops than a century ago with far fewer people. New technologies, more efficient machines, new methods of fertilizing, better systems of crop rotation, and efficiencies of large scale have all made farming much more productive.

Manufacturing is analogous. In America and elsewhere around the world, it's a success. Since 1995, even as manufacturing employment has dropped around the world, global industrial output has risen more than 30 percent.

More after the jump.

--Robert Reich

MORE...

A presidential proclamation marking Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Month.

Available in full after the jump.