It happened about two hours ago, and there's a lot of conflicting reports. The underground network and buses are shutdown, and there isn't much to be found online--bbc.co.uk and sky are timing out for me at the moment, but this BBC URL works.

I remember what I wrote when Madrid happened, and I can't think of much more to add, except to reiterate--how long must we sing this song?

Inflation used to be described as too much money chasing too few goods. In a world where the supply of goods is more elastic—either because of technological advances or new sources of supply such as China—inflation becomes too much money chasing too few assets.

So, are we to believe that when everything else in the world has changed drastically economics should remain unchanged? We already know the answer to that. The real question is whether economists will start seriously questioning the assumptions and techniques for analysis of our economies before or after difficult problems arise.

Yesterday I watched both Sen. Kerry's concession speech and President Bush's victory speech. I thought that Kerry did a good thing in not keeping this going on for too long when it was clear that it was almost impossible to win, and I wish more people would point out that it was a graceful gesture. They could have continued on, but didn't, and everyone was spared another draining and bitter fight that would almost certainly ended up with the same result. I also thought that Bush's speech was ok, and I sincerely hope he will act on some of the things he said, and maybe (such as working to earn the support of those who didn't vote for him), just maybe, now that the GOP has such clear control, and that Mr. Bush isn't running again for re-election, he will tilt a bit more towards the center, and help generate a climate of more cooperation and mutual respect. Likely? Maybe not. Possible? Yes. As the New York Times noted yesterday: "[...] after the inevitable, and necessary, period of disappointment, mourning, and even anger, among those who opposed his re-election, there should be a period in which his calls today for partisan healing should be taken at face value." No less would have been asked of the other side had Kerry won.

Bush won a clear majority, but that was still determined only by a difference of a couple of percentage points and about 5% of the electoral votes. Half of the US still thinks differently. It's a nation where political (and even philosophical) discourse is being held on a global scale. And there has to be a way for it to be come a bit more reasonable, and reasoned. There was a brief moment after the first debate during which the campaigns suddenly started debating real issues, questions of use of force, or the US's role in the world, etc. After a few days it quickly degenerated back into the usual he said/I said baloney. But that moment showed that a real discussion is possible. Here's hoping that becomes the norm, rather than the exception (I know, I'm an idealist, what can I say).

At least what I was thinking of a clear victory more or less happened. There was no protracted legal fight, and little uncertainty, which is good (Again, kudos to Kerry for that).

Finally: One comment I got a couple of days ago pointed to William Gibson's weblog, who had started to blog again in mid-October to make his voice heard. I totally missed it, I kept the link but had unsubscribed from the feed (which you can bet won't happen again) because back at the beginning of the year he said he wasn't blogging again until his new book came out. Anyway, yesterday he had a good quote:

Virgil, as ever, has it down: "Dis aliter visum."

So I'll just say this: I hope that the result tomorrow is clear-cut. A prolonged fight like in 2000 (except this time it's likely to be in multiple states) will not be a good thing. At least a clear electoral-college victory--I have the feeling this will happen, regardless of how close the popular vote is, but I have no idea why I think that!

I was watching CNN and they were describing all the new "safeguards" they put in place to avoid the embarrasment of 2000. Which means they'll make entirely new mistakes this time.

Anyway. Tomorrow night will surely be interesting. :)

Callar a veces significa mentir
por que el silencio puede interpretarse como un estar de acuerdo ...”
“Yo no podría sobrevivir
a un divorcio entre mi conciencia y mi palabra.

Miguel Unamuno Lugo (1864-1936)

To be silent sometimes means to lie
because the silence could be understood as agreement ...
I could not survive a divorce
between my conscience and my word.

By the way, the "disappeared" in Argentina where sometimes buried under the name "N.N." which is an acronym that dates back to the Nazis. In Nazi Germany N.N. meant "Nacht und Nebel", or "Night and Fog", the cover under which these unknown people had been taken.

Something to keep in mind about the consequences of dictatorships and the rule of fear.

PS: I just remembered that I recently read House of Bush, House of Saud and I didn't comment on it. Hm. Must fix that.

PS2 (Later): Before that, though, I should talk about the book Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers which I read weeks ago.

So, for the next few days, I will (flu willing) be talking a bit more politics than usual. :)

The reaction of the press has, for once, been quick and to the point. But governments, EU Nations and the US foremost, have been a lot more equivocal. A Bush administration official was quoted in the Times as saying that this was a "domestic problem of the Russian people." By Tuesday, Colin Powell had changed tack a bit, by saying that "the fight against terrorism should not become an excuse to move away from 'democratic reforms of the democratic process.'" Yesterday, President Bush inched forward a little more saying he is "concerned about the decisions that are being made in Russia that could undermine democracy in Russia." To this mild rebuke, the Kremlin replied that "the processes that are under way in Russia are our internal affair."

So that's as far as the Bush Administration is concerned. I have heard nay a peep from the British government, the Irish government, or any other major European government for that matter. The silence of Blair, and the muted response of the Bush administration, are more worrying. Spreading democracy and freedom to stabilize the world have been, after all, the major rationales for the war in Iraq after the WMDs went the way of the Dodo.

My question has less to do with consistency (although that would be nice) and more with the effect that something like this has in fostering distrust on the world's most powerful nations. Just like western support for middle east dictatorships (and others around the world) creates cynicism and despair (and is then used as an excuse for nihilistic mass murder) letting Russia fall back under dictatorial rule would be an even bigger blow than dabbling with North Korea while they produce fissile material like McDonald's produces burgers.

Not to mention that a quasi-Russian dictatorship (a "Putinist" Russia) would be quite a lot more dangerous for world stability than any of the components of the much vaunted "Axis of Evil". Russia doesn't need "weapons-of-mass-destruction-related-programs-capability" (as US's National Security Advisor Rice one described the finds in Iraq). They already have WMDs, biological, chemical, and, of course, nuclear. Plus the delivery systems. Plus one of the biggest armies in the world.

So it is clear to me that Europe and the US have to respond quickly and without equivocation: these "reforms" should be rolled back. But how? The famous "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists," while true in a narrow sense, creates a problem for open discussion and disagreement. After all, if that's the choice, then almost everyone would be "with us". But it's a false choice, because it doesn't allow for being against the terrorists, but by other means: you have to accept whatever "us" has chosen. While this proclamation might be sustainable in a democracy with a long history like the US, it is not sustainable in a newly-formed democracy with a history of opression, like Russia. But of course, Putin (as others, like Pakistan's Pervez Musharraf) silently invoke the "with us or against us" mantra, twisting it into "you either accept what I say, whatever it is, or you're with the terrorists."

It is probably unrealistic to ask the US or UK governments (or the EU) to step back from this rethoric, but they and the EU governments can certainly draw a line in the sand and stop a trend from becoming widely accepted reality.

The G8 has a number of carrots to take steps in this direction. If they are not used soon, the moment will pass, and it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible to pull back. If history has taught us anything is that dictatorships always emerge slowly, inch by inch, many times after the dictator has been "rightfully" elected, and sheepishly accepted by others and the people as the "necessary response" to attacks from within or outside.

Ignoring the hypocrisy of saying that the US and Europe are for freedom while letting something like this happen, I can't see any strategic scenario under which a newly dictatorial Russia would be anything but a disaster for the world. (If somebody has one, I'd very much like to hear about it).

Western nations, particularly the G8, should act now. The price of silence will be high otherwise.

In 1985, the blind Wahhabi imam Abdul Aziz bin Baz retracted his fatwa punishing people who believed the earth was round after a conversation with Prince Sultan bin Salman bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud, the grandson of Ibn Saud. The prince had just been a passenger in the American space shuttle Discovery and told the imam that having been in outer space, he could personally attest that the world was round.

from House of Bush, House of Saud by Craig Unger.

Less concerned about the current geopolitical situation, there's this In Depth Report from the BBC which includes a lot of good historical material, including news on that day in 1944. The Long Shadow (a book review), and this interesting tidbit BBC article on arguments between Eisenhower and Churchill as D-Day, H-Hour approached, and a page from the Eisenhower Library with his messages to the troops, including the draft of the D-Day message as well as the final version.

"The eyes of the world are upon you." And it was true.