1) As a result of the enormous arms build up, approximately half of the world's industrial capacity resided on US soil.

2) We possessed two-thirds of the known gold reserves on the planet.

3) To help fund the war effort 85 million Americans had "saved" $185.7 billion by purchasing bonds (equivalent to Americans saving $2.26 trillion today).

4) A half decade of rationing had pent up an overwhelming reservoir of consumer demand.

5) Our primary economic competitors had all been ravaged by warfare while our infrastructure had thrived.

When had any nation, since the dawn of the industrial age, enjoyed such a staggering advantage over every other nation? It had never happened before and almost certainly never will again, so it is little surprise that such an unprecedented advantage would subsequently translate into a generation of unparalleled growth and prosperity. By the 1970s, however, the world was catching up. US economic hegemony was being directly challenged by rival powers and US industries, many of which had slackened into complacent oligopolies, sluggishly adapted to foreign competition. For their part, US workers, whose wages and benefits had soared during the boom years, were increasingly forced to compete with cheap foreign labor. Add to this the unfortunate fact America's domestic energy supply had peaked in 1970 and the vine was ripe for stagflation as President Carter urged his fellow Americans to "face the truth" in his infamous Malaise Speech of 1979.

People who, like me, raise questions about the value of global military engagement are sometimes called "isolationists." But that term rightly applies only to people who don't realize that there are threats to our security out there. If you perceive the threats but realize that they're collective action problems, you realize that we do have to be involved in their solution.

What form should the involvement take? Funny you should ask! This is my last Opinionator column (maudlin details below, in the postscript), and I just realized that in my year of writing the column I've given short shrift to one of my main hobby horses: global governance.

Global governance is the solution to international collective action problems. The problems can range from environmental (it doesn't make sense for any one nation to cut carbon emissions unless others join in) to financial (as when nations coordinate policy to head off a contagious financial panic). But the most prominent symbol of global governance - the United Nations - was created mainly to deal with the problem under discussion here: keeping the peace. The United Nations Security Council is a mechanism through which threats to peace can be recognized, the military action necessary to deal with them authorized, and the burdens of that military action shared.

If we're smart, we'll use what's left of this moment to craft instruments of global governance that will assure our security even in a world we don't dominate ... and will also equitably distribute the costs of international security. We'll show people how to build a world in which we can all, without fear of being attacked, reduce the amount of money we spend on arms.

« ok, I'm done now

The fungus is found in India, Nepal, and Pakistan, so it could be natural. Especially given the Taliban's kick-up of cross-border people flows who handle poppies on both side of the border.

On the other hand, it could also be introduced; the American strategy does indeed seem to quietly revolve around sitting on the poppy growers in Helmland, per Staretgy Page's "This Is The Plan". On the contra side, George W. Bush reportedly considered using pleospora in Afghanistan, but firmly rejected it. It's possible that Obama has decided to use biological warfare, I suppose, and the recent outbreak reflects that.

But how would we know?

That's the thing with biological attacks. Unless you're dealing with clearly unnatural mutations, like chimera viruses, you can't be sure it isn't natural. It doesn't take many people to implement. And even if it clearly isn't natural, you can't usually tell where it's from with any certainty.

Something to contemplate, as we face a religion for whom suicide-murder attacks on civilians have become, among many, the highest moral example. The pushback created in places like Iraq, where they were forced to engage and endanger their own co-religionists on a regular basis, has blunted that thirst - but not removed it. The Islamic civil war for the religion's soul continues. The winning side is very much in doubt. And the clock of falling technology curves still ticks....

« ok, I'm done now

It's time to face facts: San Francisco is spectacularly mismanaged and arguably the worst-run big city in America. This year's city budget is an astonishing $6.6 billion - more than twice the budget for the entire state of Idaho - for roughly 800,000 residents. Yet despite that stratospheric amount, San Francisco can't point to progress on many of the social issues it spends liberally to tackle - and no one is made to answer when the city comes up short.

This city is a mecca for people in search of a government handout that they can hand out. According to a 2009 analysis, San Francisco spends around 41 percent of its discretionary budget - about half a billion dollars - on nonprofits, mostly to provide social services for the poor, homeless, elderly, and others.

Many cities contract with nonprofits because it's cheaper than using city workers. Government is now paying the tab for services that used to be undertaken by families, churches - or, frankly, no one. But a 2009 University of San Francisco study notes that this city is to nonprofits what New York is to big musicals: "Per capita expenditures by operating nonprofits in San Francisco are almost double that of the rest of the Bay Area, and more than twice that found in Los Angeles or [the whole of] California."

We want the services. We're willing to pay for them, if they lead to good results. Yet whether our gargantuan investment is paying off is a question no one has an answer to. Hardly anyone even bothers to check. As far as much of the city is concerned, ignorance is bliss.

In 2007, the Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) held a seminar for the nonprofits vying for a piece of $78 million in funding. Grant seekers were told that in the next funding cycle, they would be required - for the first time - to provide quantifiable proof their programs were accomplishing something.

The room exploded with outrage. This wasn't fair. "What if we can bring in a family we've helped?" one nonprofit asked. Another offered: "We can tell you stories about the good work we do!" Not every organization is capable of demonstrating results, a nonprofit CEO complained. He suggested the city's funding process should actually penalize nonprofits able to measure results, so as to put everyone on an even footing. Heads nodded: This was a popular idea.

There are two lessons here. First, many San Francisco nonprofits believe they're entitled to money without having to prove that their programs work. Second, until 2007, the city agreed.

The then-president of the Board of Supervisors had proposed sweeping Muni reforms to get the transit system running on time and on budget. National transit experts said Peskin's proposal was solid; it was later approved by the voters in 2007 as Proposition A. Since then, Muni has slashed services and raised fares, and is facing a bigger budget crisis. That shouldn't have been a surprise - Muni reform started unraveling on that June day, when dozens of transit union workers "testified" in front of the Rules Committee.

Job protection for even the most obviously unfit Muni workers is among the strongest in the city. Peskin had proposed increasing the percentage of employees who could be fired for incompetence from 1.5 to 10 percent. But if that provision were included in the measure, union reps said, they would flood the "No on A" campaign with money and volunteers. "This is a union town," one transit worker warned. "And we expect it to stay that way."

Peskin caved. He had to. This is a union town. You can't reform the city charter without winning an election; winning an election requires union support; and unions - almost by definition - don't want major reform. It would be a paradox - but that would contravene a number of union bylaws.

In 2002, the San Francisco Chronicle revealed that the city had, for decades, been siphoning nearly $700 million from its Hetch Hetchy water system into the San Francisco General Fund instead of maintaining the aging aqueduct. Several mayors and boards of supervisors used that money to fund pet causes, and the Public Utilities Commission didn't say no. Unfortunately, spending maintenance money elsewhere doesn't diminish the need for maintenance. By 2002, the water system was in such desperate condition that voters were asked to pass a $3.6 billion bond measure to make overdue fixes. Obligingly, they did - who doesn't like water? Since then, the projected costs have swelled by $1 billion. So far.

« ok, I'm done now

"According to Article 239: "No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years."

The direct purpose of this provision, which has been in place for 27 years, is to prevent the kind of "creeping dictatorship" so familiar in Latin America, from the left and the right. Honduras' Supreme Court and the attorney general ordered Zelaya's arrest per that provision, and the Army carried out that function within Honduras' constitution. Who is currently serving as President? Roberto Micheletti, a member of Zelaya's own party, and head of Honduras' Congress. Who is constitutionally next in line after the President (stripped of office) and VP (resigned to run for President). That doesn't look anything like a coup to me. It looks like the rule of law.

Honduras has certainly had a long history of American intervention. Indeed, every single historical argument one could advance for a "soft approach" in Iran, applies here with more force. Coupled with the fact that this is a country following its constitution rather than a theocratic cadre brazenly stealing an election, it should be a no-brainer. But of course, Obama is uninterested in consistency - or perhaps he is.

In his role as an enabler to dictators and their allies, he's been absolutely consistent.

« ok, I'm done now